Syria

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, although Governments might learn a lot about not establishing red lines in other countries where we then breach them, which we have done with Putin and, particularly, in Syria with chemical weapons, it is clearly too early to know how Russia will respond to this. We know that it has withdrawn some of its naval fleet, but we do not know what the immediate future holds in Putin’s mind. These are early days—I am glad to hear in the Statement that asylum claims have been suspended, as it were, for the time being—but can the Minister give any guarantee that nobody will be returned to Syria before we are clearer about what they might be going back to, especially if they belong to a minority, and that proper hearings will still be held so that justice is done for some very vulnerable people?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me make it clear to the right reverend Prelate that the Home Office has temporarily paused decisions on Syrian asylum claims while we assess the current situation. The vast majority were fleeing the Assad regime, but we do not know what will replace it at the moment, so there is no way of judging an asylum claim and whether it is safe for someone to return. That is why we have paused the decisions. We have not stopped the process; applications are being considered. But we will keep all country guidance relating to asylum claims under constant review so that we can respond to emerging issues.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I rise to speak in the gap because there was a clerical error. My name should have been on the list and was not, so the remarks about Bishops being strangely mute are perhaps unmerited. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brady, on his maiden speech. All I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, is that the end is now more nigh than when this debate began, but I wish her well in the future. We heard Jesus quoted earlier:

“Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends”.


Your Lordships will remember that Jeremy Thorpe famously said of Macmillan, after the night of the long knives:

“Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his life”.


That might provide another lens through which to see this debate.

I have heard the observations about the Lords spiritual. I listened carefully to them and there were few surprises. But if we are going to look at reform in any way, we have to be a bit cannier about some of the facts. It has been said here today that we are all Peers. The Lords spiritual are not Peers; we are Lords of Parliament and that is different. If your Lordships do not know what that means, it is legitimacy for being here. The Lords spiritual have no illusions about the need for changes. We are behind that, but we need to be wiser about the nature of what we are doing.

We do not see our establishment as privilege but as obligation to serve. My life would be considerably easier if I did not have to do the day job, which is demanding enough, and this is an obligation to serve. The Lords spiritual were not born in dog collars, so we bring other stuff as well. In my own case, it was Soviet military intelligence as a multilinguist at GCHQ. That is not a reason for not kicking us out, but let us be a bit more nuanced about what we say. We bring experience and expertise.

We are also regional. We have heard a lot about the need to represent regions. Probably some of the best connected people in this country are diocesan bishops who oversee and engage with the whole of civil society, at just about every level in the regions. We are not whipped; we are independently minded, which is why we vote in different directions. Most importantly, as the current Government will find, we retire at the age of 70, so what one or two noble Lords have asked for is guaranteed: a turnover to bring in fresh blood. For one part of the House, that seems to me to be quite helpful.

The major thing I want to say is that I agree with what was said earlier—I cannot remember who said it now—about form following function. That is an important principle and I wonder if we have got the questions in the wrong order. If this reform is to go through, and no doubt it will, we have to look at how we guarantee the basic functions that this House is here to fulfil—and then what expertise and qualifications we need to enable the House to function properly. We will otherwise be left with the law of unintended consequences, where you pick at one bit and then the whole lot comes apart.

I am an advocate for wholesale change, not piecemeal. My fear is that you cannot look at reform of the House of Lords without looking at the whole picture of the constitution. I know that this has been rubbished in the course of this debate as the way of putting off any change, and that you have to start and do it bit by bit. I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in her response to address the question of whether, if this is going to go ahead piecemeal—one element which might be approved or disapproved of by many—can it be in the context of the Government establishing a constitutional commission to look at the whole picture? Even as this element is being looked at, it should form part of a greater whole that then gives the assurance that there is a sense of direction in which all the different elements that have been raised here today can be looked at. Then we can have the confidence that the further changes will be rational, properly thought through and credible.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Bill has strong support in the House, and that support includes these Benches. We are pleased to work with the Government in cases such as this where our objectives are aligned. I am proud of our record supporting women in this House, and our women Bishops have made many valuable contributions to Parliament since they first became Members of your Lordships’ House. As a frequent member of church congregations, I can confirm that this reflects the sterling work of female clergy right across the country.

Finally, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is not in his place but has so eloquently led for the Bishops on this matter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for her work on this Bill and I thank the officials involved. As she has said, I hope the other place looks upon the Bill favourably.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I think it is down to me to thank the Government. All the other Bishops are at a House of Bishops residential elsewhere. I thank the Government for taking this on and thank those who contributed to the debate at different stages. This is a mechanism to allow us to make the progress which we need to make more quickly. I am grateful to the Government and the House for their support.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Sudan

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, it is always a daunting honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the previous speakers. Like them, I have some considerable experience of Sudan, having been there a number of times and had dealings not just at the political level but on the ground, among very real and ordinary communities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for securing this debate.

Behind the statistics, there are human beings and stories; 25 million people going hungry could be just a number until you look individuals in the eye. Dig a little deeper and the whole situation in Sudan is much more complicated than simply two generals having a scrap. What we can say with confidence is this: military violence, including the bombing of children, women and ordinary civilians, is appalling. It is often indiscriminate, especially when unleashed by the RSF in what increasingly looks like deliberate and intentional genocide in parts of Sudan. A humanitarian catastrophe has exploded in plain sight of the world and its Governments, with food shortages; the closing down of access for humanitarian aid from neighbouring countries; famine; malnutrition; and a generation of children who are being starved, made homeless and given no medical care or education.

As the director of the World Food Programme told us at the APPG, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton:

“Avoidable famine is no longer a threat—it is a reality now”.


Future harvests are now in serious doubt. What will the consequences of that be? Do not be surprised if masses of Sudanese seek refuge through irregular immigration in this and other countries if the UK seeks to address the current crisis without addressing the consequent implications for a destabilised region: the wider corruption of civil society in Sudan and neighbouring countries; challenges in establishing future legitimate government with civil society engagement in a now-destroyed nation; and, one day, the challenge of reconstruction.

It is evident that elements associated with the RSF are seeking to kill Sudanese history, culture and identity in order to replace it with a different narrative, although there is not time to explain what I am referring to here. There are no simple or simply achievable solutions. We cannot urge action in this place to salve our consciences if our messaging, however well intentioned and humane, does not change anything on the ground for those both with and without power.

Against government advice but with deep respect to the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—he has been completely supportive and honourable in my engagement with Sudan; I note that the consul from the Sudanese embassy is present in the Chamber for this morning’s debate—I visited Port Sudan in June with a colleague, the Bishop of Bradford. The diocese of Leeds has nearly half a century of strong relationships with the Episcopal Church in Sudan. Like the Church of England here, the Church in Sudan exists not for its own sake but for the sake of the people of Sudan. Despite massive threat and displacement, the bishops and clergy have largely stayed in situ. The Archbishop of Sudan, Ezekiel Kondo, saw everything in Khartoum destroyed by the RSF and escaped only with his life and the clothes he stood up in. Now based in Port Sudan, he runs the province from a small desk in the corner of his bedroom in a tiny, basic rented house.

While in Port Sudan, the Bishop of Bradford and I visited a camp for displaced people. Around 2,000 people live in a derelict school. Because they were internally displaced and are therefore not refugees, they receive no support for health, education or food—just a few tents from UNICEF. The night after we visited, a delegation came to see us and told us that at least one woman had been raped by soldiers in the early hours after we had left. We met a pastor, now also living in exile from Khartoum. His home was attacked by the RSF, and all he had had been destroyed. He was beaten a number of times before being asked, “How do you want to die?” He was rescued by a Muslim neighbour who hid him until he could escape and get to Port Sudan, mostly on foot.

We had time there with the director of central intelligence, who said that there was no restriction on what I could report of our conversation in my diocese or in this House. His narrative is one with which I am very familiar: the conflict is not a conflict of equals. The SAF and the Government are seeking to secure the future of Sudan. The RSF are rebels who seek their own gain, deploy violent mercenaries from other countries and kill indiscriminately, with a clear suggestion that they will settle for the possible division of the country. It was put to me that, when people need sanctuary, they do not flee to the open arms of the RSF or their controlled areas but to places controlled by the SAF. That is just a fact.

The case put by the current Sudanese Government is clear. The international community—especially the UK, as pen holder of the UN, along with our deep connections with Sudan over decades—must work to stop the flow of arms and money to the RSF, particularly from the United Arab Emirates. However, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Russia and others are also involved in this tragedy. Someone is profiting from the arms flow, and it is not the starving, suffering people of Sudan. Governments must apply pressure via sanctions and co-ordinated action—by a reinvigorated troika, for example—to cut off the flow. Surely the priority of a ceasefire, urged by many involved parties, is only possible once that arms flow has been stopped.

When a ceasefire becomes possible, who is going to lead the mediation? Many countries that wish to are directly involved on one side or the other. Calling for a ceasefire sounds noble until we dig into the pragmatics of how to make it happen. Also, if a ceasefire simply freezes the divisions that are there now on the ground and both sides keep the territory they control at that point, where do we go from there?

We cannot simply wait for the conflict to end or be ended. The international community must press hard now for protected access points to be opened across the country in order that millions of lives can be saved and a viable future for the children of Sudan can be opened up. Children must be prioritised if the seeds of the next several generations of violence, power struggles and poverty are not to be watered so freely in the blood-soaked violence of now.

The UK Government and partners must leverage all their resources and political power to cut off the arms flow and create the conditions where any credible ceasefire might create the space for negotiation. Failure to address this catastrophe now will only lead to increasingly uncontrollable consequences elsewhere, with further destabilisation of an already fragile region. For example, oil gelling in the pipelines will diminish South Sudan’s economy and add to economic and humanitarian challenges. Mass irregular migration will be a consequence, and so on. So I agree with the call for all diplomatic means, as the Minister said. It is essential that the new special envoy must physically get into Sudan. I have to say that Port Sudan, when I was there, was safer than London. We need a physical, visible presence, even if it is only on a regular visit. Other ambassadors and envoys are doing this.

The Church of England’s love for our sisters and brothers in Sudan will not diminish. We will continue not only to pray but to act, caring for the Sudanese expat community here and those in Sudan whom we can reach. We might justify the UK government advice again and visit the people we love. For us in the Christian Church, faith is incarnational: fleshed, physical and material. I urge the Minister in his response to give assurances that Sudan will gain in focus and not be left on the “too complicated” pile. I hope that the Minister will be willing to meet with me and others to pursue this further engagement.

Defending the UK and Allies

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that “aggression” is really an appropriate word to use in this respect. The United Kingdom, the United States and other nations involved have not undertaken any form of aggression. I think that if the noble Lord, with his great experience as a very distinguished Minister, had been faced with a situation where a British warship had been attacked by 20 drones and nine missiles, he might have asked himself whether some response would be appropriate. I think I said in this Statement, and repeated in earlier responses, that very careful and calibrated warnings have been given here. But with this aggression—if one wants to use that word; frankly, it is tantamount to a piratical attempt to interrupt the right of people all over the world to trade and move, and use the freedom of the seas—there is, as I said in the Statement, a cost to inaction. The Government’s judgment, and I believe the judgment of the House broadly, would be that not to have responded to that kind of attack, not only on one of our own warships, would have a cost. Were we to lose such a warship, having been targeted by 29 weapons, that would have been regarded as a disaster. We should remember that the Houthis have launched more than 25 attacks already on ships in the region, including those sailing under the British flag. This is not aggression; this is an act of self-defence and defence of international law.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I am very reassured by much of what I have heard this evening, but I think there is a distinction between what is escalatory in intent and in effect. If the effect is escalation, how are the UK Government preparing or planning for a wider escalation? I am particularly concerned about the capacity of our Armed Forces. I am happy to be reassured, but often in this House we have questions about whether we have sufficient personnel, as well as equipment. Can the Minister give some assurance that we do have capacity, and that the implications of the 2023 integrated review might be revisited in the light of developments in the last few months?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate refers to the integrated review. Obviously, the integrated review refresh confirmed an additional £5 billion to the Ministry of Defence over the next two years. That followed a £24 billion four-year cash uplift in defence spending in 2020, which I think was the largest sustained increase since the Cold War. For the first time, our annual defence budget is over £50 billion. I do not think that is what is actually keeping the right reverend Prelate awake at night; I think he was asking whether we can be assured that our troops, airmen and sailors will receive the equipment and resources they need to meet whatever eventualities occur. The Government’s commitment is that the answer to that is yes. We are already letting contracts for the renewal of equipment, to ensure proper defence and support.

As far as escalation is concerned, I can only repeat what I said: the British Government and the international community have made it absolutely clear that they do not want escalatory action in this part of the world under any circumstances. However, we were confronted with the situation we were, with the Houthis firing on innocent commercial vessels. Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea increased 500% between November and December; then we saw the attack on warships. It is not the British Government or anyone else who have been escalating; we were faced with action to which we have made an appropriate, lawful and proportionate response.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 241A, I shall speak also to my Amendment 500 and comment on other amendments in this group.

I should declare from the outset that social housing is a topic very close to my heart. As a new-town child, when I was growing up, more than 30,000 of the 38,000 homes in my town were built and managed by the development corporation and later taken over by the council. Almost everyone I knew lived in a council home. They had been built in self-contained neighbourhoods with large amounts of green space, schools, health facilities, shops and so on all within a 10-minute walk. They were mostly two, three and four-bedroom family houses with gardens. Sadly, as land values have increased, that type of development is all too scarce.

As noble Lords will be aware, the introduction of right to buy not only took a scythe to housing stocks but, particularly in the new towns, disrupted the community cohesion brought about by shared housing tenure. Those 30,000 homes that I mentioned earlier have reduced to just over 8,000 now. The figure for the UK is that there are around 1.5 million fewer council homes now than in 1980. Councillors’ inboxes are full—permanently—of housing cases. Surely the generations who benefited from right to buy cannot just pull up the ladder behind them. From the experience of my councillor surgeries, they had not anticipated the impact on their children and grandchildren, never mind all the other young people for whom private renting, let along buying homes, is fast disappearing over their financial horizon.

Just yesterday, we had a shocking report from the National Housing Federation, setting out the impact of overcrowding, particularly on the life opportunities of young people. The findings of its report say that more than 300,000 children in England have to share beds with other family members. Some 2 million children live in cramped conditions with little or no personal space. Ethnic minority households are three times more likely to be overcrowded than white households. More than one-quarter of the parents living in overcrowded homes who were questioned by researchers said that they regularly had to sleep in a living room, bathroom, hallway or kitchen.

The family featured in the National Housing Federation press release, Joanna and her daughter Deni, were forced to seek council help when private rented accommodation became too expensive. Joanna had never been able to afford a two-bedroom property but, with rents soaring, now struggles to afford a one-bedroom flat. Deni, a talented musical student who is on the Royal Opera House programme for promising singers, has shared a bed with her mother for the whole of her 10 years and spends school holidays sitting on that bed while her mother works from home.

My own casework contains hundreds of housing cases a year, around 70% of which relate to homelessness, overcrowding or affordability. Shelter, which does such magnificent work in this area, held an independent commission which pointed out that we have lost 1.5 million social homes since 1980 and recommended that government rediscover publicly built housing as a key pillar of our national infrastructure by building 3.1 million new social homes over the next 20 years. That is a very ambitious target, especially when we note that only 6,463 more social homes were built last year, and 500 of those were by my local authority. After the Second World War, local authorities built more than 126,000 social homes a year. The biggest barriers are land and funding. Shelter, IPPR, CPRE, National Housing Federation, Onward and Create Streets all call for reform of the Land Compensation Act 1961, so that landowners are paid a fair price for their land without hope value. We will discuss this when we come to future amendments. Local government has also argued for many years that we should retain 100% of our right-to-buy receipts. We welcome recent developments on that front but, had it happened decades ago, we would not have seen the catastrophic impact on housing stock levels.

The Resolution Foundation’s Housing Outlook report for the first quarter of 2023 stated that, although mortgagors had been affected by rising interest rates,

“private and social renters are much more likely to report falling behind or struggling with their housing costs”.

It also said that,

“worryingly high numbers of … renters report signs of material deprivation and are resorting to sometimes unsustainable strategies to manage their housing costs”.

They include borrowing money, using savings or not heating their homes. The ONS deems rental properties affordable if a household does not spend more than 30% of its income on rent. In this country, only the east Midlands and the north-west had rent prices affordable to those in the lower quartile of household income.

There are also key financial drivers to the provision of social rented homes. First, the rent paid by social renters is recirculated to improve stock, build new homes, develop specialist housing and so on. This is sometimes the case with good private landlords, but not always. Secondly, it makes no sense to subsidise higher private rents through the benefits systems. A rapid increase in social housing stock would generate savings, as there are stark contrasts in rent levels. The figures for my area are indeed stark, with social rent for a two-bedroom property at £110 a week and private rent at £235. The local housing allowance is just £195. The amount that councils spend on temporary accommodation has increased by 71% in the past five years and now costs more than £1 billion a year.

I hope that I have set out clearly the issues and the impact that housing supply is having on the affordability of housing. My Amendment 241A is included to remove from the NPPF the spurious term “affordable housing” from rented properties that are 20% below market rent. In many areas, that would be far from affordable. For many families on low incomes, the only affordable housing is social rented housing.

Amendment 242, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and Amendment 242ZA, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, attempt a comprehensive redefinition of the term “affordable home” to ensure that there is a link between median incomes and the definition of affordable homes, with that definition then enshrined in regulations. We support this proposal in principle and would want to work with the sector to ensure that there is a much more meaningful definition included in legislation and in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Amendment 262 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, highlights the specific issues of affordable housing in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The issues around these were clearly elucidated by my noble friend Lady Hayman yesterday—I am sorry, on Tuesday. The weeks go by with this Bill, I am afraid. She quoted the former chair of National Parks England, Carl Lis, who warned that young people and national park staff are being forced out of their communities, in part by the high prices driven by exclusive holiday homes. She also referred to a statement by the Secretary of State in the other place on 21 March in which he pledged planning changes to the Bill to ensure that restrictions would be put in place on conversions of homes to Airbnbs. Failure to act on this important issue will see the continued decimation of communities in our most precious landscapes, as increasing numbers of homes are bought for second homes and converted to Airbnb use. Local councils must be able to use the planning system in the best interests of their communities. I hope that this amendment and that submitted by my noble friend on Tuesday, or a version of them, will be accepted to achieve the Secretary of State’s aim.

Amendment 286 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, suggests bringing forward the requirements of the future homes standard to June 2023. In view of the protracted progress on the Bill through your Lordships’ House, this may prove a tad ambitious, although, of course, we hope that these can be implemented as quickly as possible. The second part of this amendment would grant powers to local authorities to determine for themselves what percentage of affordable homes is needed. We absolutely accept this in terms of devolution principles, but I just echo my noble friend Lady Hayman’s comments on Tuesday that, although we must be serious about meeting the affordable housing need, we also need to consider that communities need mixed tenures in housing.

We support Amendment 438 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Shipley. I remember the absolute horror with which the original announcement of this measure was greeted by my colleagues in local government in 2012. Some London boroughs rightly pointed out that every property in their housing stock would exceed the threshold. We welcome the fact that the Government have already committed that they will scrap this policy, so perhaps incorporating this amendment is a quick and easy way to do so.

Lastly, I turn to my Amendment 500. Mission 10 in the White Paper is the key mission relating to housing. While its ambition in terms of improving the quality of rented property is admirable, in other ways it looks at housing through the wrong end of the lens: it sees levelling up only through the point of view of property ownership. For millions of people on housing waiting lists, in temporary accommodation, sleeping on their friends’ sofas or, as in a case I dealt with yesterday, having to conduct access visits with their children in their car because they have nowhere to live, the prospect of a safe, sustainable home with a secure social housing tenancy would meet their immediate aspirations of levelling up. That is why we hope the Government will recognise the absolute importance and value of social housing and use the opportunity of the Bill to commit to building the numbers we need. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendment 242 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I do so having consulted the Bishop of Chelmsford, who leads for the Church of England on housing but is unable to be here today. It is clear, I think, that we need to rethink what genuinely affordable housing is and how an adequate supply can be delivered. In London, the south-east and many other areas across the country, the current affordable housing for rent definition of 20% below market rates makes little difference to those on a median income, let alone those in most need. Without redefinition, we will continue to work under the illusion that homes classed as affordable are helping to solve the housing affordability crisis, when for the most part they are not.

Of course, we need a multifaceted approach to solve the lack of affordable homes. I was interested to learn from the Bishop of Chelmsford that Vicky Ford MP has been addressing this in relation to Chelmsford. During her 10-minute rule Bill debate on 22 February, she spoke to the shortage of affordable housing we face locally and nationally. Her Affordable Housing (Conversion of Commercial Property) Bill would apply affordable housing obligations to conversions of commercial property to residential occupancy. The Bill is due its Second Reading in the Commons on 26 May, and we certainly hope that it will make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, before the noble Lord takes his seat, may I apologise for jumping the gun? Before he had been able to speak to his own amendment, there was a silence and, like nature, I abhorred a vacuum, but I do apologise.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I think the spirit moved. It is good the right reverend Prelate spoke first in this case.

Covid-19

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The noble Lord is right: there was a reduction in capacity over Christmas. I am sure that conversations are being had, but I go back to the point that I made earlier: in the next couple of months, we are tripling the supply of lateral flow tests from 100 million under our pre-omicron plan to 300 million a month to ensure that we have the testing capacity that we need.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

I am intrigued by the statement about Nightingale hospitals. What is meant by a virtual bed and how does that increase actual capacity, especially in the light of the staffing pressures in the NHS already? If these Nightingale hospitals are to be populated and used, how will they be staffed?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The virtual wards are different from the Nightingale surge hubs. The hubs will create up to 4,000 beds if needed, and will be facilities that take patients who, although not fit for discharge, need minimal support and monitoring while they recover. The virtual wards involve people who are able to return home to have treatment through virtual interaction with medical professionals. They are different things done in different ways for different patients in different situations so that they can be properly treated in an appropriate manner.

Business of the House

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

As my noble friend asked me to respond, let me say that any procedural device should be used sparingly. I have moved a closure myself, so I cannot pretend that I wholly disapprove of it, but I believe that filibustering does not do the House or the individuals indulging in it any good at all. Of course, it should be used, but the main purpose of my speech was to try to lower the temperature and bring a little sense to both sides of the House, so that we can conclude our proceedings today in a seemly manner and deal with the legislation that is likely to arrive, in an equally seemly and sensible manner.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I strongly endorse what the noble Lord has said. It seems to me that we have to be realistic. I speak as a Lord spiritual with an obligation to engage in what was called “high politics” earlier, as a Member of this House, noting that the Lords spiritual cannot be whipped and that we are not a party. It seems to me that we have to be realistic and say that this prorogation has been disingenuously propagated as being just a little extension to recess, when we know that it is of a completely different order. We have prorogation on one side and these procedural objections about closure and guillotine over here. The reality is that we are going to carry on with the sort of spectacle we have had thus far unless the Front Benches come to some agreement and conclusion. It would be grown-up to do that. I do not suspect, from what I am hearing, that anyone in this Chamber wants to spend day and night going through these Motions to achieve very little other than irritation, so I add my endorsement to what the noble Lord has said and encourage the Front Benches to do as he requested.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, from this Front Bench I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for what he said, which was in good tone and wise. The important thing is that he called on both Front Benches. Noble Lords will recall my noble friend Lady Smith, the Leader of the Opposition, saying at the beginning of the debate that if we could be clear that the Bill could get through in time—that means before prorogation, because otherwise we know what would happen—then she did not see her Motion as necessary. I am not in a position to make promises on her behalf and certainly not in a position to say anything about general elections—that is way above my pay grade—but on the point about whether the Front Benches can agree a business Motion, as it were, to get the Bill through in time, that is something that I understood my noble friend to say she would welcome. At that time, the Leader of the House was saying something different. I am not going to put her on the spot, but if we knew that both Front Benches were saying that, that would be a very different matter and it would be welcomed by the House. I understand the House and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to be accepting the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am not going to say anything more, since I cannot, but I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.

EU Council

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. The political declaration is a declaration of our intentions for our future relationship. It certainly sets out the intention to have the strongest and broadest security relationship between the UK and the EU. Our partnership and strength in these matters was shown in particular, for instance, in the strong language of the Council conclusions on Russia and its actions in Ukraine, which was very much led by the Prime Minister. We will continue to work very closely on our security relationship. Both sides are absolutely determined to make sure that it is the deepest relationship that exists between the EU and another country.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, would the Leader of the House agree with me that the language of the Statement is not helpful? It says:

“But let us not risk the jobs, services and security of the people whom we serve”.


It is a fact that Brexit, of itself and the process we have gone through, has already done that. To say “Let us not further risk” might be more accurate. It also says:

“Another vote would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics”.


That integrity has already been rubbished by the lack of honesty about the realities that Brexit entails. Thirdly, it states that we should,

“get this Brexit done and shift the national focus to our domestic priorities”,

as if they were either/or.

As Sir Ivan Rogers makes clear in his remarkable lecture from the University of Liverpool—to which I would like to see a response from the Government—Brexit is process, not event, so there is no way in which it can be “got done”. This stage of it might be, but surely it is misleading to the country to suggest that it is somehow done if we get through this bit.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

This Government are going to deliver on the wishes of the British people, as expressed in the referendum. We and the EU have been clear that this is the best deal possible. It is a deal that we have worked extremely hard to secure and it will lead to a strong relationship between the UK and the EU in future. That is what we have been working towards and want to deliver to the British people, because that is what the British people wanted.

Exiting the European Union

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, the Prime Minister says in her Statement that those who continue to disagree need to shoulder the responsibility of advocating an alternative solution that can be delivered. Surely that is everybody’s responsibility. She goes on to ask people to be honest about the implications of what they want. However, it seems to me that people have been honest for the last couple of years but they have not been listened to. Has the time now come for the Prime Minister and the Government to stop playing a zero-sum game and, on a cross-party basis, find a credible way ahead?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am afraid I do not agree with the right reverend Prelate on that point. The Government have been listening and it is for that very reason that the Prime Minister has now decided to go back to the EU to discuss the further reassurances that people are looking for, as has been made very clear in this House and the other place.