Outcome of the EU Referendum

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend is absolutely right. In addition to our relationships with other countries via those established institutions, whether they are the European Union, the Commonwealth, which we are absolutely still part of, the G7 or the G20, we will continue to build and strengthen our relations with other countries.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, the Prime Minister made a very dignified statement on the steps of No. 10 last Friday. He again made a dignified Statement today in the other place. He is a decent and honourable man. Would it therefore not be very sad if future historians were to see his legacy as having made a very powerful statement against referendums a few years ago and then changing his mind because of a will-o’-the-wisp, illusive attempt to find party unity, a legacy which led to Britain leaving the European Union and, potentially, breaking up our own United Kingdom itself?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the positive comments that he has made about the Prime Minister, but I am afraid I disagree with him about everything else that he has said. We were very clear in our manifesto that we wanted to provide the British people with an opportunity to decide on membership of the European Union. As I have already said, I am very proud that we gave people this opportunity and delivered on that clear commitment. We have arrived at a point that, as I was trying to suggest earlier, has been a long time coming. This is not about party unity, this is about giving people the opportunity to decide on something very significant. The people have decided they want change, and we have to respect that. It is not what I campaigned for, but they have decided. We are going to implement that decision, which is the right thing for us to concentrate on now.

Regional Museums

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of either the Cross Benches or the Bishops, and I would imagine that the House will want to hear from the Bishops before we go to the Cross Benches and then back to the Labour Benches.

Palestinian Authority Television

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, we have plenty of time to go around the House. The House was not indicating who it wanted to hear from next but I suggest that we go to the Labour Benches, if among them they could decide who they would like to go first.

European Council: March 2016

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, as the weather improves, the longer sea routes from Libya to Lampedusa, Sicily or Malta will increasingly be used. There may be a new Government, albeit a feeble Government, in Libya, but ISIS controls a substantial part of the coast, including the port of Sirte. How can we possibly hope for progress without the military defeat of ISIS, which plans to send jihadists from Libya to the European mainland? Can there be any serious progress without the military defeat of ISIS in Libya? What plans, if any, have we to do that?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Lord is right to highlight that the root cause of all this is ISIS, or Daesh, and the appalling atrocities that it is performing in that part of the world. There is now a new Prime Minister in place in Libya and a new unity Government have just been established. The Foreign Secretary has already been in touch with the new Prime Minister. We stand ready to assist in Libya, but we will not take any action there without it being in response to a request. Clearly, if there was any extension of any activity in that part of world, the Prime Minister would want to return to the House of Commons. In the mean time, we have increased our presence as part of the NATO regime off the coast of Libya to try to do more to tackle smuggling before people leave the Libyan coast.

Turkey: Zaman Newspaper

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am very sorry that the House requires me to take up valuable time to adjudicate. It is the turn of the Labour Benches and, therefore, of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, is it an unspoken, unwritten part of the deal under discussion that we moderate our criticism of the authoritarian tendencies of the current Turkish Government?

Syria: Refugees and Counterterrorism

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Monday 7th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am very grateful to the most reverend Primate for being here today and contributing on this Statement, and for his leadership, and that of other faith leaders, over the last few days and the recent period while we have been observing such terrible scenes. He raises some important points. He described our response as a slim one; he will not be surprised that I do not accept that definition. As I have said, we do not believe that this is just about providing refuge to individuals here in the United Kingdom; we must support people who are in and around Syria and are very much in need, and we have been doing that in a substantial way. No other European country has contributed as we have over the last few years, and I really believe that we should be proud of what we have done to support people in that part of the world. We want to continue doing so, and we are targeting our aid in that area—using the increase, in monetary terms, in the aid budget because of the rise in GDP—so that we can ensure that, as the most reverend Primate highlights, local conditions in the camps are addressed. As for the Christians being among those who are most in need because they are not receiving the support that others are, this is something for us to discuss with the UNHCR. It is important that when the UNHCR considers the criteria for those who are most vulnerable, those should include Christians who are not receiving the kind of support that others may receive.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, since the Prime Minister’s harder line last week, we have seen the tragic photographs of that drowned little boy. Recalling that his family fled from Syria to Turkey and were trying to get to Greece rather than go into a camp, will the Minister confirm that that family would not have been helped in any way by this Statement? Secondly, does the status of the five-year humanitarian protection visa mean that people would be in danger of being deported at the end of the five years, if conditions were to change? Does that accord with our obligations under the refugee convention? What is the legal advice on that? Finally, I want to ask about the letter to the President of the UN Security Council that is said to justify action in respect of a named individual. Does that letter just give a bare assertion that this man was planning action, or has planned action, against the UK, or was evidence supplied that came from our intelligence services? Clearly it would be wrong for this House to ask for the evidence, but surely there must be some evidence, rather than a bare assertion, if we are to convince the UN Security Council that we are acting in accordance with proper legal principles.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I will have to come back to the noble Lord on his last question about the letter to the UN. I am not clear about the specific terms in which a sovereign nation has to inform the United Nations and the detail it is necessary to set out. However, I am confident that we will have complied with the necessary requirements in informing the United Nations. As the noble Lord acknowledges, it is not possible for me to go into the detail of the evidence as that would compromise our security procedures. On his questions about our existing arrangements for refugees, as I am not familiar with the detail of how refugees are supported when they come to the United Kingdom in terms of their status, residency and so on, and as this question has been raised a couple of times, I will place a letter in the Library outlining the situation. However, I reassure the House that the existing arrangements will continue to apply. I am happy to outline that in a letter.

Syria: UK Military Involvement

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, it is the Cross Benches next.

G7

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

On that matter, as I said, as far as Russia is concerned we are completely firm in our position on Ukraine. But it is right that the Prime Minister has had a conversation recently with President Putin, and in the course of that conversation President Putin and the Prime Minister agreed that our national security advisers should restart talks on the Syrian conflict. But the Prime Minister was clear with Putin, as ever, that Assad could not be part of the solution in Syria because, as I said in the Statement, he is a recruiting sergeant for ISIL and not part of the answer to it.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

I have two questions about Russia and Ukraine. We are told in the Statement that the G7 was clear and unambiguous about the position. It states:

“Diplomatic efforts must succeed in restoring Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

Does that extend to Crimea, or have we written off Crimea effectively as a fait accompli?

Secondly, the Statement states that we stand ready to impose further sanctions if necessary. Clearly, that is important, and it is particularly important that Japan is now part of that consensus. But are the Government really confident that the EU sanctions will even be maintained, given the very strong pressures of President Putin and his inducements for a number of EU countries?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The Prime Minister and the other European leaders were absolutely united in their view on sanctions on Russia, certainly in the course of discussions at the G7 over the last few days. From the preliminary discussions leading into the next European Council meeting, I gather that there is no question of any doubt on that, but it is something that we have to keep pressing. We have talked about this before. We all have to hold together on this, because it is so vital. Russia must not see any weakness in our agreement in the West and in Europe on sanctions remaining in place.

On the noble Lord’s question about Crimea and whether it has been written off, I would answer, “Absolutely nothing of the kind”. We remain very clear that what Russia did in that area was illegal and there is no question that this would in any way be ignored or forgotten.

European Council

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Monday 23rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful for the message from my noble friend as well. I agree with him at the same time as I agree with my other noble friend, because this is precisely the point. We believe that there are really important, positive advantages to Britain being a member of the European Union. However, we do not believe that the status quo is where we should remain. We believe that some changes are necessary in Europe—that is what the Prime Minister is committed to renegotiating; then he is committed to putting that clear choice to the British people. But there are very important and positive reasons for us to remain a member of the European Union.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, will the good governance fund come out of the aid budget or the Foreign Office budget? The Statement says that,

“the Council welcomed the significant reduction in fighting and the … withdrawal of heavy weapons”.

Is this not part of Minsk II, and did not the Government and some allies—some European partners—try to ensure that the sanctions, particularly the tier 3 sanctions, would be renewed forthwith? But the majority of our partners thought it made sense to monitor the implementation of Minsk II, which, after all, was agreed on 12 February. Is this not a reasonable position?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

In answer to the noble Lord’s first question, the good governance fund will come, initially at least, from the DfID budget. Secondly, I have made it clear that sanctions will remain in place until Minsk II is fully implemented. The importance of those sanctions, and of all members of Europe being united in keeping them in place until Minsk II is fully implemented, was agreed by all member states at the Council last week.

EU Council

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Monday 23rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

In that case, it is probably right for me to respond to the points made by my noble friend.

On Ukraine, it is essential that we in Europe are united in our demands of Russia and our support for Ukraine in having a secure future for its people. That is what we are seeking to achieve and we are applying pressure on others. Although there may not have been as much enthusiasm in the past for sanctions when this approach was first adopted, it is clear now that because the sanctions are having a real effect and because we need to judge Putin on his actions and not his words, the sanctions regime must remain in place and if necessary be strengthened further. That is what my right honourable friend will ensure.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, Russia has annexed Crimea. It has created another frozen conflict. We in the West appear to accept that this is permanent, just as we have done in Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Now that Russian surrogates have taken over sections of eastern Ukraine along the border, is there not again a serious prospect that this will become permanent and that President Putin, notwithstanding the pressures put on him, will be prepared to pay the price for yet a further Russian victory over the West, particularly, as has been said, as there is a real danger of flakiness on the part of some of our EU partners?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I think I have already made it clear that because President Putin has not delivered on his words and we must judge him on his actions, which so far have not met his words, we are strong and united within the European Union and alongside America in our demands of him and in making sure that he meets the terms of the Minsk agreement. We will continue to apply sanctions, which will stay in place until he meets the terms of that agreement.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Monday 8th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I will begin by saying a couple of things to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. He is absolutely right that we feel very strongly about the need to protect the freedom of speech, which is what we are doing through this legislation. He also talked about this being a serious amendment, and that he wishes the Government to take it seriously. I can assure him that not only do we take this amendment seriously but that we have taken seriously all amendments that have been tabled, both in Committee and on Report, and will continue to do so.

The noble Lord mentioned various examples to illustrate his argument that employees need additional protection. I responded to all of them at various stages of the Bill, so I will not do so again now. However, he said that people feel concerned that once the Bill becomes an Act—and we hope that it will become an Act—they will not be able to maintain what he described as a mainstream view. I understand that concern; however, not only will it be possible for people to maintain and express their belief, we recognise that that belief is a mainstream opinion. We are not trying to say that it is a sidelined opinion—it is an important belief that many people hold, and we would not want to say anything to undermine people who hold that belief, as we respect them.

On the noble Lord’s amendment and its proposal to amend the Employment Act 1996, we are not convinced that it is necessary, or desirable, to provide additional protection for employees in this way who express a belief that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Discriminating against an employee because of this belief would already be unlawful under the Equality Act, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said. That existing protection strikes the right balance in providing protection for the employee, while also protecting other employees and customers from discrimination and harassment. It is important to understand that the Equality Act is there to strike a balance. Employers must have the right to ask their staff to do what is necessary to run their business, provided that it is reasonable and lawful. Therefore, if an employer does not think it right that an employee should express personal views on this or any other subject to customers, for example in a restaurant or hotel, he should be able to ensure that his employees perform their jobs in the appropriate way. To be clear, that does not mean that an employee has no right to hold the opinion or belief that they do.

Furthermore, if we are to pick out this particular belief for protection in the Employment Rights Act, what is the justification for stopping there? Other beliefs are equally worthy of protection, including the belief that marriage can be enjoyed equally by same-sex couples. The principle applies to an enormous range of beliefs which are entirely legitimate, although the expression of them might impede the performance of the job in question.

Employees are already protected under discrimination law. The Equality Act already provides comprehensive protection against unlawful discrimination—both direct and indirect—harassment and victimisation. It would be a matter of fact whether conduct of an employer constitutes a detriment and whether it is imposed because of the employee’s belief that marriage should be of one man with one woman. If there is direct discrimination, it would not be capable of justification and would be unlawful.

We believe that these amendments are unnecessary and potentially damaging to the balanced way in which the Equality Act protects people from discrimination and harassment. There is no need for further protection to be added to the Employment Rights Act. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

I hear the Minister and my noble friend Lady Thornton. I remind them that the law is not being introduced into a vacuum, but into an atmosphere where there is already active hostility to those who hold a traditional view of marriage. There is a very active lobby that would seek to take to court, or bring pressure upon, employers in that respect: that is a fact of life.

My noble friend says that we cannot legislate against idiots—I think that that was her phrase—and, of course, we cannot do that. However, the problem is that if points are raised by individuals against employees or if employers act in a way of which we do not approve, that still raises fears and is still expensive for those who are the object of that.

My noble friend also said that some of those cases have been won. For example, Mr Adrian Smith won a contract action against his employers, thanks to some good legal advice. However, that was a Pyrrhic victory, given that he lost his job. As a result he had minimal compensation; so it is not quite as simple as the Minister has said. I hear her, though I am not wholly convinced by her assurances. In the circumstances, I think that it is appropriate to withdraw the proposed amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I shall try to avoid repeating myself, because a lot of this amendment would lead me to do so. I will avoid doing that, if the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will forgive me, and go directly to the central point of his amendment.

My first point is that an employer should have the right to ask his employees to do their job. Equally, he may not impose a requirement on them that would discriminate against them because of their religion or belief. Of course, it is open to private sector employers to make any adjustment they wish for their staff. It is quite possible, and perfectly lawful, for an employer to allow staff not to be involved in any activity that is objectionable to them—if the employer wishes. In this regard, private sector employers are not in the same position as public sector employers. As the noble Lord made clear, he does not include the likes of registrars in this debate in any case.

However, imposing a duty on employers to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of religion or belief would be a new concept in English law, as the noble Lord has already acknowledged, although he mentioned that it was common practice in the US. We would need to consider in detail how that duty would work in conjunction with the rules on indirect discrimination, and whether all other religious and philosophical beliefs should be equally protected—not just the belief that marriage should be of one man with one woman. That is not a task to be undertaken in this Bill, and I note the comments from my noble friends Lord Lester and Lord Deben about their view of this concept.

To pass this amendment would add a new burden on employers, who would have to work out what it means in their own particular context. It is probably worth pointing out that in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Robin Allen QC, on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, made clear that the existing legal protections contained within employment and equality law would be suitable to deal with any issues that may arise. He advised against including additional safeguards, such as a reasonable accommodation provision in this Bill.

So the current provision in legislation, which prohibits discrimination because of religion or belief, is fit for purpose. To impose a whole new duty of reasonable accommodation in this Bill is unnecessary. It could also be damaging to the balanced way in which the Equality Act operates, create uncertainty and add a new burden on employers who would have to make sense of it. I therefore ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, if we truly believe in liberty of conscience, we can hardly be against an attempt to ensure that an employer seeks to accommodate, wherever reasonable, the views of an employee. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who tried to reduce to an absurdity the point that I was trying to make, but does he or does he not believe in the principle of seeking to accommodate, wherever practicable? Clearly, in many firms such an accommodation would not be practicable because of the number of individuals concerned but in the example of a car firm with perhaps 10 drivers, it is surely not unreasonable to ask an employer to ensure that the individual who has expressed such a view is not the one called upon to drive.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, prayed in aid US precedence during a number of earlier debates on this matter. He quoted Brown v the Board of Education of Topeka. He or someone else mentioned Plessy v Ferguson, the separate but equal case in relation to the railroad. There were a number of other cases to the same effect but the noble Lord is less willing to quote US precedent when it does not happen to suit his purpose. Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the US, there is such a provision for reasonable accommodation. It has worked there successfully since that time and I have no reason to doubt that if we were to put such a measure into law today, it would work equally effectively in England and Wales and other common-law jurisdictions.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Anderson of Swansea

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this very important and helpful debate. May I say first that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, for repeating what I said at Second Reading? The Bill absolutely makes it lawful, and continues to make it lawful, for people to believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. It is their right to express that belief and the Bill does nothing to change that. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lord Lester for what they said about the Equality Act protecting people who have a range of religions beliefs but in this context hold the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and are free to express that belief. It is important that I continue to make that clear.

I also recognise, however, that people are looking for reassurance and want to know that it is perfectly legitimate to continue to hold the beliefs that they have always held, and that they will not be in any way disadvantaged because of these beliefs—or, indeed, that it would be unfair for people to criticise them in any way, although clearly it is free for anybody to express an opinion that is contrary to that view.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned, the Government are bringing forward an amendment to the Public Order Act. I will speak to that in a little more detail when I take the amendments in turn. We felt that it was important for us to do this as we recognised the need for assurance and because it was possible to make that amendment to the Public Order Act without causing any detriment to anybody. We really do understand that people are looking to us for assurance.

The amendments have clearly enabled us to explore issues of conscience in relation to the Bill, and it is right that we should do so. Let me start with Amendment 5, which was moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He seeks to explore how the Bill could impact on those seeking appointment to a public office—such as appointment to the board of a non-departmental body. The amendment seems to be based on the premise that, should the Bill be enacted, anyone expressing a belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman might somehow be excluded from appointment to public offices.

I can reassure noble Lords that this is certainly not the case. This Bill is not about forcing people of faith to change their religious views, practices or teachings about marriage. The belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman is, and will continue to be, mainstream and entirely lawful. Indeed, the Bill explicitly makes clear that such a belief is legitimate and mainstream through the specific protections it provides to ensure that religious organisations and their representatives who do not want to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies cannot be compelled to do so.

Public appointees, like anyone else, are and will remain free to express their religious or philosophical beliefs as long as this does not affect their ability to do their job.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

The noble Baroness is making a very important point. She will know that concern has been expressed about the conduct of various authorities in the past—certain councils, certain police authorities and so on. What assurance can she give the House, in the spirit of the assurances that she is now giving, that adequate guidance will be given to these authorities so that we do not have a repetition of how poor individuals have been pilloried in the past?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am about to come to the specific examples that have been raised. I hope I will also give the noble Lord some comfort by saying that we are working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to review its guidance and ensure that revised guidance is issued. It is also looking at its statutory codes in this area. I accept, as has been pointed out by noble Lords in this debate, that we need to make sure that public bodies in particular—although not just public bodies—are clear that it remains absolutely lawful for somebody to express their belief in this way. We want to make sure that that is clear to them. The Equality Act 2010 provides express prohibition against discrimination because of religion or belief. This includes a religious or philosophical belief that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. This protection applies in relation to public appointments and to employees.

I move on to Amendments 7 and 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I am grateful for his explanation although, on the face of it, the scope of these amendments is not entirely clear. However, it would certainly include a range of public authorities and religious organisations, and would potentially extend to commercial service providers. Like the noble Lord’s amendment in the earlier group, these amendments would effectively create two tiers of marriage—a point made, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—with marriages of same-sex couples on a lower tier. That would undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which, as I made clear in earlier debates, is to extend the single institution of marriage to same-sex couples.

Of course, there are circumstances in which individuals need strong and effective protection in order for religious freedom to be safeguarded. For example, a clergyman should not be compelled to solemnise the religious marriage of a same-sex couple against his conscience. We all agree about that, and the Bill provides that protection through the explicit protections already contained in the quadruple lock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

He may have only one driver. It may be a very small firm and the only driver available is that driver. It is not possible for us to legislate. The employer might turn around and say that he has a team of people and that he is quite happy with that arrangement. Outside a public authority, I cannot give the noble Lord a definitive response to the kind of scenario that he is painting. It is absolutely clear that it would be legitimate for that person to express their view, but not for them to say that, because they hold that view, they therefore do not have to do what they are employed to do. I hope that is clear for the noble Lord.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Would it be legitimate for an employer to dismiss from employment as a chauffeur someone who had expressly told him at the time of employment that he was not prepared to convey people at a same-sex marriage?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

We are now getting into so many different hypothetical scenarios—