Afghanistan

Baroness Warsi Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]]

My Lords, many years ago when I made my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House, I spoke about the rights of women in Afghanistan and the responsibility we had as a member of the allied force. As Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for Afghanistan from 2012 to 2014, I was involved in the negotiations of the political agreements, including the trilateral discussions between the United Kingdom, Afghanistan and Pakistan. I saw at first hand the work of our Armed Forces in Kabul, Helmand and more widely. As the proud mum of a child in our Armed Forces, I pay tribute to those who served so bravely and to those who paid the ultimate price with their lives. Three minutes is not long enough even to start to unpick our intervention and withdrawal. I sincerely hope my noble friend will commit today to a timely and thorough inquiry. However, for today, I have some specific questions.

What we have seen was entirely foreseeable and predictable. What consideration was given to averting this and what judgments were made that the obvious, which we are now seeing on our screens, was not going to happen? What representations did we make, if any, to stop the end of a relatively small but effective deployment, with little loss of allied lives since 2014? What efforts were made to persuade the US not to withdraw air support and what consideration was given to building a coalition without the US? What, if any, efforts were made to build that coalition?

The second thing that could come out of today’s debate is for the Government to sharpen their approach and focus their mind on dealing with the current catastrophe over the next few days and weeks. I, along with many in this House, have spent the last week trying to arrange visas, exit routes and flights for Afghan colleagues and friends we have worked with, particularly women. While I appreciate what colleagues have tried to do, particularly my noble friend Lady Williams, my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary and in particular our ambassador Sir Laurie Bristow, ad hoc calls and personal pleadings cannot be the answer.

Can my noble friend detail in a written note, and place it in the Library today, the practical process for getting out those who will be killed if we do not act? It is a tragic failure of our Government and shame of our response that my colleagues and I are reaching out to colleagues in Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey and other countries to pick up and assist those who assisted us, to give refuge to those whom we let down and to protect those who supported us. We need our Government to act, not announce, and to act now.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Baroness Warsi Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I start by offering my humble and sincerest condolences to Her Majesty and the Royal Family on the passing of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. In line with Islamic tradition, indeed, to God we belong and to God we shall return.

Today is both a remembrance and a celebration of a life well lived. Through 73 years of marriage, the UK and the Commonwealth have had the privilege of witnessing public service of the highest standard. Many noble Lords have today given very personal stories of their moments with His Royal Highness. Like them, I will cherish mine, but today I want to put on record two specific contributions. The first is His Royal Highness’s role in enhancing and strengthening the UK-Pakistan relationship, not least through his visits, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and 63 years of patronage of the UK’s Pakistan Society. As Prime Minister Imran Khan said over the weekend,

“Britain has lost a wise elder who was imbued with a unique spirit of public service”.


Pakistan, with the rest of the Commonwealth, mourns him.

The second contribution is His Royal Highness’s role in faith, including its impact on British Muslims and Muslims across the world. As we have heard, His Royal Highness had a keen interest in faith and faiths. The noble and right Reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, detailed much of this work. His vision and convening of the interfaith summit of Assisi in the mid-1980s set the course for much work on tackling climate change. His invitation,

“Come, proud of what you bring of your own, but humble enough to listen”,


reflected his belief that faith had a crucial role to play in the big issues of our time. As Imam Qari Asim, chair of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, said, His Royal Highness exemplified loyalty, fortitude and altruism, but, above all, service to our nation. In Islamic tradition, there is a saying that the one who does good to others will not fall, but should he fall he will always find something to lean on. Prince Philip has much to lean on as he leaves us.

I end simply by repeating what I have found to be a particularly powerful and timely tribute. Barack Obama said of the Duke of Edinburgh:

“At the Queen’s side or trailing the customary two steps behind, Prince Philip showed the world what it meant to be a supportive husband to a powerful woman. Yet he also found a way to lead without demanding the spotlight—serving in combat in World War II, commanding a frigate in the Royal Navy, and tirelessly touring the world to champion British industry and excellence. Through his extraordinary example, he proved that true partnership has room for both ambition and selflessness—all in service of something greater.”


That is the way I, and many others, will remember him.

Gaza Strip: Rafah Crossing

Baroness Warsi Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, what is Her Majesty’s Government’s view on the United Nations Human Rights Council report on potential war crimes during the conflict in Gaza last year? Does the Minister accept that accountability in previous conflicts is likely to assist in preventing future conflicts? In the light of that, how does he now view the Foreign Secretary’s statement in July last year when the United Kingdom abstained on the setting-up of this report by saying that it would,

“complicate the process by introducing unnecessary new mechanisms”?

[The Earl of Courtown]

The noble Baroness is quite right concerning accountability: there must be a robust process of accountability given the heavy civilian death toll. That includes acts committed by Hamas and other militant groups too. We are pressing Israel to demonstrate accountability for its actions during this conflict. The noble Baroness also mentioned war crimes. Both sides of the conflict have put themselves into a position where perhaps war crimes have taken place. We of course need to keep a careful watch on this matter.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Baroness Warsi Excerpts

Friday 31st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

This is a very important point. My noble friend Lord Anderson has been a Member of the other place and of this House for some time, and he was an official in the Foreign Office, so he understands how these things work. The House needs to know. Is the promoter of this private Bill being advised and handed notes by officials of the Foreign Office, paid for by the taxpayer?

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, if the House really wants to know the answer then maybe I should give it. In the Box we have officials from the Foreign Office, who have prepared a government brief on a government position on many issues that will be arising during the Bill. They are government officials providing a government line on elements that may come up during the Bill upon which there is an agreed government line. Also in the Box I have my special adviser. He is there to provide me with any political lines, and it is those that are prepared by the Conservative Party. There is a clear distinction.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

Will those government officials who are dealing with the strictly government parts of this Bill—I am bound to say that it is hard to know what the government parts are, because the Liberal Democrat party seems to be opposing the Bill vociferously—also therefore be making their advice available to the spokesman for the other part of the Government, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine? When we discussed this last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said that for the purposes of this Bill she was very clear that she was speaking as spokesman for the Conservative Party. That party is indeed a party of government, but the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, is speaking as the spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party, which is also a party of the Government.

This is a serious point, not a trivial one. As it happens, since it is a constitutional issue, I think that it is wrong that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, is sitting on the Bench. I am sorry to say that. I think that she is an excellent Minister—she is diligent and hard-working and serves this House very well indeed—but for the purposes of the Bill it would be more appropriate if the noble Baroness sat on the Back Benches. Alternatively, if we want to take a precedent, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was joined by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the government Front Bench to deal with the Leveson inquiry, and they were both on the Front Bench together. That way the Government were represented on the Front Bench, because those are the two parties. We have a problem here: either the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, should be sitting with her Back-Benchers—and we would be delighted to hear her because she is always cogent and good—or else the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, should be joining her on the Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

I am sorry to intervene again, but has an approach been made by the Foreign Office, or indeed by the Leader of the House, to inquire whether anybody would wish to do that?

[Baroness Warsi]

I can inform the House that officials provide the same level of support and the same information to Ministers from both coalition parties.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

It is quite difficult when there is no Liberal Democrat Minister from the Foreign Office. I know that there is a Liberal Democrat Whip. I know that we wish to move on, but I think that many people in the Chamber are concerned about this constitutional aspect because it pertains not only to today, it has future relevance as we move towards the end of this Parliament. Noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench opposite have not been able to see the Liberal Democrat Members shaking their heads. It is clear from these Benches that there is a difference of opinion between the two parties in the coalition. Perhaps it is something that could be clarified later, but I think that we are not in a happy constitutional position on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle]

If I recollect correctly—I took an active part in that campaign—there was an assessment of the reasons for British membership, which was sent to every household.

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, there is a government view on membership of the European Union, which is that the UK’s interest is to be a member of a reformed European Union. There are also agreed government views on how to run a referendum, following the alternative vote and Scottish independence polls. However, there is no collective position on holding a membership referendum and hence no government view on its implications. Noble Lords can be assured that, by the time of the referendum, the official yes and no campaigns will have made their cases in some detail. Therefore, the British people will be in no doubt about the choice that they are making.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, this has been another lengthy debate and I do not wish to prolong it. First, I will just respond to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made earlier. I assure him that I have never sought and never been given, so far as I am aware, any advice from a government official for this debate other than factual advice or advice about the Government’s agreed position. I believe that all the proprieties have been maintained, as they ought to be.

It is unthinkable that people would not be fully supplied with responsible information before any referendum campaign. There may of course be plenty of irresponsible information too, but that is the stuff of politics. It is nobody’s intention to ask people to vote on such a fundamental issue when they are not fully briefed and fully aware of what the issues are. No one can expect people to come to a rational and reasoned decision—as we would want them to—without the appropriate information.

However, it is very difficult to see what this amendment would add that is so very different from the amendment that the House carried last week in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, which called for,

“an evidence based assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom ceasing to be a member of the European Union”.

I argued against that amendment, simply on the grounds that people would get all that information anyway and that it was not necessary to include those provisions in the Bill. The House decided otherwise and passed that amendment calling for an evidence-based assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom ceasing to be a member of the European Union. I am genuinely puzzled therefore as to the need for this amendment.

Again, the wording is important here. It asks about our “intended” future relationship with the EU. As it seems likely that, under most circumstances, all the major parties will be campaigning for us to stay in the EU, the question is: the outlines of this future relationship as intended by whom? How can this task be completed? By consulting UKIP? The only sensible way to seek a response to the question of how one intends to get divorced—which I think was the phraseology of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull—is to ask those who actually want to get divorced in the first place. Any plan B drawn up by those who do not believe in it, will not be arguing for it and have no intention of pursuing it would not be worth the paper that it was printed on.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, suggested, in defence of this amendment, that we should do what the Labour Government did for the euro by making their intended position clear. If that is the example he expects us to follow, I am not in favour of it. It was the most bizarre approach that any Government have taken to such an important issue and points to the difficulty of an intended position on something of this sort. The suggestion that underpins this amendment is really rather woolly. It is ambiguous and therefore I think that it is flawed. That is why I oppose it, which is perhaps why a very similar amendment was defeated on Report in the other place by a majority of 265 to eight. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has come up with an interesting constitutional principle that a clear vote in the other House does not reflect the view of that House, but we will pass on from that.

This is not a Bill for those with closed minds, and there are closed minds on both sides of this issue. This is a Bill designed to give those with common sense an opportunity to come to an informed position as to what they intend for their futures. If the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will forgive me, I do not intend to follow him up the Swiss mountains or sail along the Norwegian fjords. The Prime Minister does not want that; I do not want that; this is another argument that seems to be constructed in order to knock it down that I can see very few people putting. I shall certainly not be following the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in the magnificent tour that he gave us around every part of the world. The argument that we need to specify even more than we have done under the previous amendment and that we need to load the people with more information, not as a result of democracy or of our campaigning skills and our passionate beliefs in where we stand but on the face of a Bill because the Government require it, implies a huge lack of faith in the ability of the different sides in a referendum campaign to put their case. I do not share that lack of faith. I cannot see what this amendment would do that the amendment that we passed last week—