Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, the admirable Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, covers not just violence to women and girls in conflict areas but also more generally, so I hope she will forgive me if I digress slightly from areas of conflict to matters in the home and abroad and to the continued and horrific practice of female genital mutilation.

I was first made aware of this shortly after joining your Lordships’ House in 2013, when the novelist Ruth Rendell—the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell of Babergh—campaigned over the practice in this country. I was utterly shocked to discover that, in the UK, girls were being subjected to this torture, often with a rusty razor blade, leading to endless health issues for the rest of the victim’s life, including infertility, infection, fistulas, pain and sexual problems.

Now, there has been some improvement in this country, according to my friend Nimco Ali, the campaigner who has undergone FGM, and the real challenge probably lies in sub-Saharan Africa, in particular Somalia and its neighbours. Here, education is probably our best and most important strategy.

However, despite some welcome news on the home front, I want to warn against complacency. Because we do not read about it, it does not mean that it is not happening here. That is a reason for ongoing concern. I will give noble Lords some NHS figures, but first, a plea from the Five Foundation to the Government. In 2014, the Home Office funded a study to find the prevalence of FGM here, based on the 2011 census and other research. It showed that 137,000 women and girls were affected and that no local authority in England and Wales was free from FGM. With new census information now available from 2022, will the Home Office agree to a request by the Five Foundation, which Nimco Ali heads, to work with it to update these prevalence estimates? This project would help to inform policy on ending FGM in the UK, including to potentially help signpost where survivors could get help medical or psychological support. It would help identify the areas where FGM is prevalent.

The latest statistics from the NHS are shocking, even though they are down:

“There were 2,090 individual women and girls who had an attendance where FGM was identified in the period January 2024 to March 2024. These accounted for 3,900 attendances reported at NHS trusts and GP practices where FGM was identified. There were 945 newly recorded women and girls in the period January 2024 to March 2024. Newly recorded means that this is the first time they have appeared in this dataset … The number of newly recorded women and girls has reduced over time. This is to be expected as the longer the collection continues, the greater the chance of a woman or girl having been recorded in it previously. Since April 2015, 37,525 individual women and girls had an attendance where FGM was identified”.


So, by any measure, we simply must not sit back. We must continue to pursue anyone committing and facilitating FGM, and continue to make the practice unacceptable in communities where it happens, through discussion and education. I hope that the new Government will endorse these sentiments.

G20 Summit

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I think my inference was reasonable on the basis of the remarks the noble Lord made.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I hope I may make one aside, which I do not think has been mentioned yet. I found it very touching to see a British Prime Minister of Indian descent representing this country and landing in India. I think that says quite a lot about diversity and opportunity in this country. I realise that the Prime Minister comes from a well-heeled background: nevertheless, it is wonderful to see a British Prime Minister from that background representing us.

On Morocco, is the Minister aware of reports that that country is turning down aid from some countries? As for China and India, of course, however well we may do in this country on getting our carbon emissions down, it will pale into insignificance if we cannot get those countries—and indeed the US—to bring theirs down. My final point is on China. Was mention made of the persecution of the Uighurs?

G20 and COP 26 World Leaders Summit

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

Obviously, we are working through COVAX a lot, but we have already had bilateral communication with other countries and have worked with them directly, so it will be a combination of both.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I think one should dispose and spread a bit of optimism, given some of the comments we have heard from COP 26. There are problems, as we have heard, and I do not deny that, but I think the Prime Minister is trying to embrace this with vigour—there may be a degree of rhetoric—and we need a lot of enthusiasm here. I have a specific question. First, it was a very good sign that Brazil might be stopping deforestation, but I have to say I will believe it when I see it. The thing that concerns me, and that I want to ask the noble Baroness about in particular, is methane. It is great that so many countries decided to curb their methane emissions, but I am very worried that Russia, South Africa, India, Australia and China ducked out of that, because they, put together, will really undermine the effort everybody else is making. Will the Government try to address this? Is there any way to bring pressure on those countries to join this commendable exercise?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The noble Lord is right; about 100 countries responsible for more than half of methane emissions have joined the global methane pledge to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030, but he is right, of course, that that does not include everyone. We will, of course, both during the rest of COP and going forward, keep encouraging and putting pressure on friends and allies to meet commitments along with us. But it is a good start, a good contribution and, as I say, the 100 countries are responsible for more than half of the emissions, so I do not think it is something to be sniffed at.

Afghanistan

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a sobering debate indeed, and speeches have rightly been unanimous in their support for our Armed Forces, diplomats, BBC journalists and the women and girls now at risk. I too endorse the pleas for support for religious freedom in Afghanistan. However, those predicaments could pale before the enormity of a geopolitical shift that would see the Taliban aligning with China and Russia, as my noble friend Lord Alton, my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, warned.

Writing in the Times yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Hague, warned us not to turn our backs on future interventions, and he cited our work in Kosovo, but what we have learned once again today is the danger of interfering in other cultures, particularly tribal ones, without a carefully considered exit plan. As Vietnam and Iraq foretold, vacuums are inevitably filled by warlords or groups whose aims are at odds with those of the free world and frequently lead to an even worse situation than that which we sought to improve.

We cannot and should not conflate the cultures of other societies with our own, but, from the Crusades on, I fear that that is what we have consistently done, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, colourfully described. Like him, I found Ben Wallace’s interview moving in its honesty. I dared to hope when I saw the Taliban press conference that there might be some hope that the Taliban of 2021 is not that of 2001, but we have heard anecdotes and warnings from noble Lords better informed than me that we should be very sceptical about this. Nevertheless, jaw, jaw must, for the time being, be preferable to war, war, even if it is ultimately a doomed exercise—after all, we do business with other countries that invoke sharia law, however foreign it may be to our values.

I therefore have specific questions for the Minister. First, will the Government keep the House informed after the Recess on how the Taliban are behaving on the ground, how they are treating women and children, whether freedom of religious belief is being allowed, and if they are, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, mentioned, pursuing artists and musicians? Secondly, was there no intelligence to suggest the inadvisability of a withdrawal while the Taliban were seasonally in the cities, as opposed to the winter when they tend to withdraw? If so, was this intelligence ignored? Thirdly, is it true that a country-wide disgust at the corrupt failings of the Afghan judicial system, despite the rise of women judges, has meant that there is more support for a return to sharia and the Taliban than otherwise might be the case?

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that we need to come better to terms with our current place in the world to inform our future interventions which, I pray, will be few and far between.

Procedure and Privileges

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, there are many ways in which this hybrid way of working allows great freedom—possibly too much freedom —where people can vote from their beds. However, importantly, it allows participation from those who are physically limited, whether they are disabled or find it hard to travel, so I am very pleased that the House authorities are enacting new roles for those limited in their movement. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, who follows me, will speak about this.

I commend much of the speech made by the Leader of the House. She is an excellent figurehead at the prow of our vessel. As a broadcaster, I congratulate the broad- cast team, who allow me, in mid-Wales, to speak today. Given that they have enabled me to speak like this, why does the hybrid system somehow leave me so profoundly dissatisfied? Why do I feel that this way of contributing remotely is indeed remote? I sat in your Lordships’ Chamber last week and still felt that, for all its technical accomplishment, the proceedings were, by virtue of disembodied screens, oddly removed, so I absolutely concur with a return in early September to where we were.

I was discussing these feelings with a senior colleague in the Lords, who summed it up perfectly when he simply asked me: “Should we be considering our convenience or how best to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account?” That is the vital point. It brings me neatly to the importance of our physical presence in Westminster and our ability to intervene, and so to Oral Questions and speakers’ lists. My concern is that, as we have heard, the inability to intervene can become stultifying. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I used to enjoy sitting in the Chamber for Oral Questions. It was too rowdy sometimes, but now if I heard something that seemed ill informed, I could no longer seek amplification or correction. We have heard various ideas on this, which is why this debate has been extremely useful.

The speakers’ lists preclude spontaneous intervention and correction. Furthermore, the increasing habit of Ministers to prepare answers to solicited questions can sometimes be sensible, for instance when complicated figures are needed, but on other occasions has all too often led to a stock reply that does not really answer the point and, as I just said, there is no way of pushing for more information. We should be here—or rather, there—to listen and then to vote.

I endorse the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I am one of those who has another job—two, in fact—so I am a little nervous of the timetable suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, along the lines expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Yet I feel that this is selfish in some ways and that I should simply practise what I preach and bow to the wishes of the House on this.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, much has rightly been said about the Duke’s sense of duty and his support for Her Majesty the Queen. The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme has, as we have heard, literally been a lifesaver for so many young people. Perhaps I may concentrate on two other aspects of his character that he has happily bequeathed to his children and which have also been praised. Those who have come into contact with members of the Royal Family will be well aware of the sense of humour—the almost mischievous sense of humour—that they delight in. It is essential, really, given the lives that they live tirelessly on our behalf.

The Duke of Edinburgh had a particular penchant for the ridiculous and for the debunking of the obviously foolish. Aspects of that have clearly and joyously been passed on to the next generation. He was a patron of the Cartoon Art Trust and I like to think that he would have chuckled at Martin Rowson’s cartoon in Saturday’s Guardian which depicted Prince Philip arriving at the pearly gates and observing some angels in mid-flight above, exclaiming with astonishment, “What bloody big grouse they have up here!”

Prince Philip also had an extraordinary attribute that he has bequeathed to his family—his love of nature: painting, wildlife, and the conservation of the lands and waters it inhabits. When I was a young teenager and a boatman at Morston—the best job I ever had, and I am afraid the only one I probably had in common with Prince Philip—he would visit the north Norfolk bird sanctuary on Blakeney Point. His passion for the birds and the seals was palpable and infectious. This espousal of environmental causes could not be more relevant to our times and the problems that we and following generations are going to have to solve.

Following on from Prince Philip’s own decrying of unnecessary fuss and length, I shall keep my thoughts short, given that so much has been said so eloquently already. However, I would like to finish on a note of sympathy and sadness. I learned from the death of my own father, Lennox, that however much you might expect a death due to illness or old age, nothing actually prepares you for it, as Prince Philip’s daughter, the Princess Royal, has already observed. The reality, the degree of shock, and the void that suddenly rears up, mean that my thoughts and heartfelt condolences and sympathy are respectfully offered to Her Majesty the Queen and her family.

Covid-19 Update

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am happy to acknowledge that there are differing views on how to approach this issue. In fact, today’s discussion has shown that. I believe that everyone is taking their position for the right reasons and because they truly think that that is the best way. As I have said to all noble Lords, we are looking at the advice and are having to make very difficult judgments. The Prime Minister has that weight on his shoulders and it is a very difficult situation to have to manage.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the Government have, quite rightly, encouraged the uptake of the flu jab to help to minimise the severity of Covid, but in this area—and in many others—it is impossible to get a flu jab. I realise that she may need to write to me but can the Leader tell me how the sourcing of flu jabs is going, because it is almost impossible to get one in many areas?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The issue is that the flu jab is released in batches so certain amounts are available per month. It is more about flow-through than the availability of the flu jab; that is because it is delivered in batches up to and past December.

Covid-19 Update

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said, each local area has a local action committee, which will be working with a number of different organisations. That is where decisions will be made at a local level. If, for instance, in Weston-super-Mare, the issue was around a specific hospital, the hospital would close. To a degree, it will also depend on exactly where the outbreak has happened. Central and local information will be used so that we can act very quickly. The NHS Test and Trace system and the joint biosecurity centre will play an important role in helping feed through data on local outbreaks.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as has been mentioned, classical musicians, orchestras, freelance players and venues have been particularly hard hit by the virus because they fall between the pillars of support that the Chancellor has erected. The Secretary of State, as the noble Baroness said, has made very welcome promises and has met leaders of these various institutions but what orchestras need this minute—before they go bust—is financial help. When might these good wishes be translated into a date and actual figures?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am afraid I have provided all the information I can in terms of the fact that discussions are ongoing. There are further meetings next week. Support has been provided already. The department is very cognisant of the issues facing theatres, orchestras and others, and we will do everything we can to ensure that orchestras, for instance, can start rehearsing again and venues can open. It is an unfortunate fact that there are unique challenges, but we are doing everything we can. Orchestras and the theatre play a huge and important role in our culture and we want them back.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 13th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, for the third time it is my pleasure to give a warm welcome to the measure. Like the noble Lord, Lord Young, I have sat through all the previous ones. Indeed, the last time I spoke in your Lordships’ House on an earlier version was almost exactly a year ago today. It was on 15 March last year on a Bill that had had its Second Reading 18 months earlier, in September 2017. As we have heard, there was some serious foot dragging then on a Bill with just two clauses. What progress has there been since? As we have heard, there have been more by-elections—bringing the number to 37 over 21 years and our democracy in this House, I believe, into disrepute.

As we have heard, the system has brought in yet more white, male hereditary Peers at a time when we need, first, to reduce the size of the House—as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and others—and, secondly, to increase its diversity in gender, ethnicity and background. I use the word “background” but my noble friend Lord Snape said it as it is and called it “class”. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, described the current system as racist and sexist. I am sorry to be only woman to speak today in favour of the Bill, but I know that if there is a vote my sisters will be with me.

Mention has been made of HOLAC’s role. I point out that it has no role in scrutinising the hereditaries who come to this House. Indeed, its role at the moment of carefully sifting the possible list—shall we say?—of additions here shows what a good job it is doing.

About a decade ago, there was a survey of the then Members. At that stage, 70% of them thought that the by-elections should end. It is clear from last year that the percentage would be much higher today. Even in this debate, which is perhaps atypical of people outside, only eight hereditaries and five life Peers spoke against the Bill. I think a vote would show much more overwhelming support for the Grocott measure.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, to emphasise a point just made by the noble Baroness, some of us have not spoken because we feel that we have repeated ourselves so many times that it would be pointless to do so. There does not mean that if there were a vote, we would not be vociferous.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Then we shall use the “et al” for those of us on our side. I thank the noble Lord for that.

It is bad enough that we outnumber the democratically elected House, but to do so with 90 of our Members being here by virtue of their grandfathers or great-grandfathers—or, in some cases, going even further back—is surely a source of shame to a 21st-century legislature.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord True, is not responding on the Bill—I think he is the follow-on act—because he was honest enough to admit that much of the resistance to previous attempts was to further the Conservative interest. The figures bear that out, with 10 times as many Conservative as Labour Peers embroiled in this insular scheme.

I should have thought that, with a majority of 80 in the other place, the Government could have grasped the nettle safe in the knowledge that its working majority could not be threatened by any pesky Lords. Indeed, despite the almost completely—but not quite—persuasive words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who welcomed this Private Member’s Bill because it was us doing it ourselves, nevertheless, I come down on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: this should be a government Bill. That is perhaps for different reasons, but we both arrive there. In the light of the duty on all public bodies—that must include the Government—to promote equality, the Government should have seized on this issue and enabled the House to enter the 20th, let alone the 21st, century by getting rid of a very discriminatory part of our constitution.

It is a modest measure and would make change only very slowly, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, made clear. It would not lead to a wholly appointed House; it would take some 40 years for us to get there, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, alleged. It may be two or three years before there was any change at all if the Bill was passed. It would not affect any of our existing Members, whom we look forward to hearing from, I hope, for many, many years. Indeed, many, perhaps all of them, deserve to be here in their own right, on their own accomplishments, as will be demonstrated by a shining example, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, shortly. However, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who I think suggested that there are hereditaries who, if not born to rule in this place, were bred to it. I find that an extraordinary idea.

The purpose of our House is to make laws. It is to act as a check and a challenge to the Government and to provide a forum of independent expertise. The credibility of the House and what we do is undermined by how membership can be achieved through a very strange system of by-elections, producing a self-perpetuating selection of new Members, chosen by a tiny electorate from a tiny grouping. Let us move on this. Let us waste no more time.

House of Lords: Size

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

One of the great strengths of your Lordships’ House, which would undoubtedly disappear were we all elected, is that this kind of seminar would probably not take place. I stand corrected on the point I made about second Chambers but do not resile from the point that an elected House, or a predominantly elected House, would be superior to the current House. I strongly supported the attempt by my colleague in another place, Nick Clegg, to bring about such a change under the coalition Government. If such a change had been brought about, the exasperation of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and others over the number of Liberal Democrats in your Lordships’ House would already have been largely assuaged because we would have had elections. We wanted that and we would still like it. We may not always do desperately well in elections but in principle we are happy to contest them.

Much of today’s discussion has concerned the need for consensus as we move forward. There is considerable consensus around the role of your Lordships’ House, notwithstanding some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on this issue. I think there is near consensus, if not total consensus, that there is a strong legitimate role for a second Chamber to scrutinise and revise the Government’s legislative agenda; to hold the Executive to account through Questions, debates and the work of Select Committees; and, from time to time, to ask the House of Commons to think again—in short, to ensure that a sober second thought is built into the process of creating laws in this country.

Collectively, the House takes its role extremely seriously. We spend the vast majority of our time picking over the fine detail of legislation, continually asking the Government, “Have you got this right?”, “Did you consider this different aspect when this policy decision was taken?”, and, “Does it do what you want it to do?”. My experience as a Whip in government was that when the Government lost a vote, it was usually because we had lost the argument. This was a very difficult thing to accept at the time but it was the case. In my view asking the Commons to think again in those circumstances greatly benefited the development of legislation.

Since 1999, the Chamber has become much more professional in the carrying out of its important role and has already taken action to improve itself in a number of ways. We have taken measures to strengthen the Code of Conduct and ensure that the Nolan principles on standards in public life are observed. We have legislated on the initiatives of my noble friend Lord Steel and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to ensure that those who are convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to more than a year’s imprisonment cease to be Members of the House, and to strengthen our ability to take action when necessary to expel or suspend Members. These changes have been achieved by consensus. There is consensus that the size of the House should be reduced, and on the other principles that a number of noble Lords have mentioned: that it should be smaller than the Commons; that we should retain an element of Cross-Benchers; and that no political party should have a majority. However, here consensus begins to break down, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, pointed out in his typically wise speech. This lack of consensus applies to matters great and small, all of which could in theory enhance the credibility and reputation of the House. One such measure, which could be quickly implemented, would be for the House to agree the recommendation in the report of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct entitled Undermining Public Confidence in the House, to strengthen the code of conduct with a “disrepute” provision. However, there is no consensus to do that, so it probably will not happen.

Another measure—it was initially proposed by Lord Avebury in 2006 and was in the initial draft of my noble friend Lord Steel’s Bill—would be to end the system of hereditary by-elections in this House. That has now been taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who can certainly be assured of my support for his Bill. When it was introduced, the by-election system was supposed to be a temporary measure until the then Labour Government’s “second stage” of Lords reform was completed. As a junior Whip on the 1999 Bill, I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, then Leader of the House, at her most imperious, slapping down people who said that the system of by-elections for hereditary Peers with an electorate of under 10 was a nonsense, on the grounds that it might not have been perfect but it would never be enacted because there would be a second phase of reform—so why was anybody worried? We have seen what has happened.

Another measure that could be considered is to reduce significantly the role of patronage in the appointment of Members to the House by giving a stronger role to the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission—the burden of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jay—and by ensuring that the commission is placed on a statutory basis. The issue of scrutinising the suitability and commitment of potential Members has near unanimity in your Lordships’ House, and we should go ahead and do that.

All the more substantive proposals put forward clearly have major strengths and weaknesses. I have a lot of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Steel’s proposal on retirement age, although I know that that makes me unpopular with some members of my group, and there is certainly no consensus to do it. I have some sympathy with the suggestion that there should be an automatic retirement if a certain percentage of attendance is not reached in a Session. However, given that a number of noble Lords who make good contributions here are doing things outside and cannot be here all the time, we would have to set the bar significantly lower than the 30% or 40% suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I do not agree with the other suggestion, that we should have a moratorium on appointments. While the tap should certainly be turned down, it would be a mistake to turn it off, as we would just get an ever-older House.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

On that point about having time to come here, when I was appointed by the Appointments Commission, rather like my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, I was extremely worried, because I had composing and broadcasting commitments and I felt that I could not give the House what it might need. The chairman at that time, who is sitting here today, said, “If you have a commitment to come, that is what we need”. I cannot come at every moment of the day but I try to come, as with this evening. I was interested to hear that more interventions would be welcomed, because that would mean that people could come and participate even if they could not be here at the beginning of the debate.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes my point. I realise that my time is virtually up. I conclude, in looking at all the suggestions that have been discussed, that any further work that is undertaken will need to look at both sides of all those suggestions, both the upsides and the downsides. The lack of consensus on just about all the suggestions demonstrates that none of them is unambiguously without problem.

I am a proud Member of your Lordships’ House. I think that it plays a significant and positive role but fully accept that, in the minds of many people, this role is devalued because of the size of the House. I and my colleagues are therefore willing to look at methods by which a change in its size might be achieved short of the elections that we would prefer, but which I recognise we will not get in the foreseeable future. However, after today’s debate, and despite some consensus, we are under no illusions that this will be easy.