G20 and COP 26 World Leaders Summit

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, in the Statement to which reference has just been made—I thank the noble Baroness for repeating it—there is a very interesting passage. In the context of considering world temperatures, the Prime Minister said:

“Now, after all the targets and the promises … we come to the reckoning. This is the moment when we must turn words into action.”


Against that promise, I want to go back to the issue of vaccination. I hope I may be excused for being rather sceptical about our capacity to meet the targets which have been set out in the Statement. For this reason, as of 30 September of this year, more than 50 countries, mainly in Africa, were unable to reach even the 10% target of the World Health Organization. In Africa, the percentage of those fully vaccinated was only 4.4%. If these targets which are set out in the Statement are ever to be met, they will require resources, not simply in the provision of vaccination but in the means of distribution. Where is the plan for distribution, as the shadow Leader of the House said? In the absence of that, the day of reckoning will not properly arrive.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said, the G20 adopted the target for vaccinating 70% of the world’s population against Covid. I have set out the work that we are doing and the contribution we are making and I also set out the fact that we have committed £548 million to COVAX to provide vaccinations to help deliver more than 1 billion vaccines to up to 92 lower-income countries. Therefore, we are playing our part and will continue to work with partners to ensure that we meet these ambitious but correct targets.

Health and Social Care

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My noble friend is certainly right; this is a huge amount of investment going to where it is greatly needed. But he is absolutely right that, seeing as taxpayers—all of us—are being asked to contribute more, it is also reasonable to expect health and social care providers to ensure the money is well spent. We will work with them to ensure that happens.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can help me with some puzzlement. As I understand it, the Government have produced what they regard as a solution to the problem of social care, but later this year the Government will produce a White Paper on the topic of social care. Can she tell us of any previous occasion when any Government have produced the solution before they have produced the White Paper? These are the politics of Lewis Carroll.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I have said, there will be consultation on the detail of the local authority elements and further White Papers on integration. This is a long-running and complex programme, and we will continue to talk to people and consult as we continue developing it.

Afghanistan

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I have to say to the noble Lord that we were working on preparations. The preparations for Operation Pitting, for instance, involved intensive work by many government departments over recent months. It was the huge effort, bravery and commitment of our Armed Forces personnel, diplomats and civil servants in Kabul that enabled us to evacuate more people than any other country, other than the United States. The specific evacuation plan for Afghanistan was revised in January 2021 and kept under review until it was enacted. So we were making preparations as the situation unfolded.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

I must begin, once again, by declaring my interest as an ambassador for HALO, a charity that is continuing its mine clearance activities—and related activities, of course—in Afghanistan.

It is easy for all of us to commend the remarkable courage and ingenuity of everyone involved in the Kabul airlift. It was, if this does not overstrain the description, something of a miracle that it went so well. However, I very much regret that I cannot compliment the Government in the same way. Out of these terrible, damaging events, are there not three questions that now must be answered? First, is it not time to stop blaming everyone else? Secondly, is it not time to abandon the mirage of global Britain? Thirdly, is it not time to concentrate on the necessary reinvigoration of NATO and the transatlantic alliance?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I certainly agree with the noble Lord in his last comment. However, I dispute the idea that we have not been working with our international partners. Through the UN Security Council, the G7 and NATO, we have played a leading role in pushing for international consensus to agree a unified approach to the challenge we collectively face; that includes working with those organisations’ partners and our international friends to ensure that we can continue to get people who want safe passage out of Afghanistan out.

I agree with the noble Lord that all this needs to invigorate international action together but we have been playing a lead role. I have already mentioned the G7 meeting convened by the Prime Minister and the work we are doing to convene a potential meeting in the margins of the UN General Assembly. Of course, the noble Lord will be aware that, along with the US and France, we led on the UN Security Council resolution passed in August, which set out our expectations for safe passage for all those who wish to leave, urgent humanitarian access, respect for human rights and the prevention of terrorism. We are playing, and will continue to play, a leading role in these efforts.

Afghanistan

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I join with others in their expressions of sympathy and support and the tributes that we have already heard from all sides of your Lordships’ House. Once again, I declare my interest as an ambassador for HALO, a charity based in Scotland that is currently engaged with the clearance of mines and unexploded ordnance in Afghanistan. HALO employs some 2,400 local staff and, notwithstanding recent events, I am advised that it intends to continue with that necessary humanitarian work.

I shall never forget the sight of hundreds of Afghan men seeking to climb on to the outside of a moving military aircraft in the despairing and irrational belief that it would provide escape. They were driven, no doubt, by the recollection of the pitiless and savage regime presided over by the Taliban, with its particular subjugation of women and girls. But now we are told that the fundamentalists have become pragmatists, but always within their own definition of Islamic principles. We shall wait and see, but we know that, already, there is increasing anecdotal evidence of a return to the old ways, with house-to-house searches for individuals.

I want to look a little wider. As the people of Afghanistan are sorely troubled, the two principal advocates of the rules-based system are being mocked in Beijing and Moscow. To return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Newby, what price global Britain now? How would the British Government now define the special relationship? The harsh truth is that we have lost influence, trust and reputation. Of course the status quo could not last for ever, but why were we not aware of the disillusionment with the Afghan Government? Why were we not aware of the corruption and mismanagement in the Afghan forces, and of the lack of confidence among them when they were denied support from the army and other forces of the United States?

Let me finish with some questions. Did either the Trump Administration or the Biden Administration tell the British Government of their intentions in advance, and, if they did in either case, what representations did we make to them? Faced with the ineptitude of Trump and the determination of Biden, just what influence did our Prime Minister really have? We are entitled to know.

Afghanistan

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, and I hope I can reassure him by saying that there have been reviews. After the conclusion of Operation Herrick in 2014, there was a thorough internal review. As he will know, some of the further lessons that have been learned have played a key role in helping to shape our integrated review, so I do not think it is fair to say that no lessons have been learned. However, he is right that we are not at this point minded to consider a Chilcot-style public inquiry. We are not convinced that the benefits would outweigh it, and we are concerned that such an inquiry could take far longer and be far more expensive than Chilcot, which itself took seven years and cost more than £13 million. The relevant time period in Afghanistan was twice as long. However, I reassure the noble Lord that we have learned lessons and continue to do so. We will continue to use the integrated review to follow them through.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an ambassador for HALO, a charity that is active in both mine and ordnance clearance in Afghanistan. I accept that the Government’s intentions are good, but we must take account of the reality of what is happening. Units of the Afghan army are taking their uniforms off and handing their arms and equipment to the Taliban. In those areas that the Taliban now controls, it is already barring girls from school and undermining the rights of women. How in those circumstances, when that is happening locally, can we trust what may be agreed nationally?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. As the Statement set out, while we have had some achievements in Afghanistan, particularly in security, he is absolutely right and we accept that significant challenges remain. We are very proud that, alongside our allied forces, we have helped to train, advise and assist the Afghan national security forces to build them into an increasingly capable force, notwithstanding what the noble Lord said, in providing security. In particular, we helped set up the Afghan National Army Officer Academy, which delivers 70% of the army’s combat leaders annually, equating to 5,500 highly trained officers to date, of which around 330 are women. I do not dispute that there are challenges ahead, but we have made real gains and will continue to support those important institutions to help bring peace to their country.

Official Development Assistance

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impact assessment they have undertaken of their proposed change to the target of spending 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income on Official Development Assistance.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as an ambassador for HALO, a Scottish-based charity that has acted on mine clearance and the removal of improvised explosive devices around the world, most topically in Afghanistan, to which I shall return in a moment or two. I recommend to your Lordships an article written by the chief executive of HALO, James Cowan, a former Major General in the United Kingdom Army. In the current issue of the Spectator, he writes a most compelling article, following the murder of 11 HALO employees in Afghanistan last week.

I wish to approach the question of the proposed cuts in the overseas aid budget more generally. I have reached the conclusion that these reductions are ill thought out, mean spirited and damaging to our interests at home and abroad. Perhaps rather improbably, I take my cue from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has said that it is difficult to justify the size of the aid budget in present circumstances—to which I say, well, how does he know? He has never tried to do so. If he had knocked on a few doors in Chesham and Amersham, he might have found a few people who were sympathetic to the view that the cuts were not in the best interests of either the people of the United Kingdom nor, indeed, those whom the use of overseas development aid is supposed to help.

As a consequence, my conclusion is that the reason for the cut is political, but I have to confess that I see no legitimate political reason—so I have been forced to ask myself whether there is an illegitimate reason. I hope that I am wrong and that it can be shown to my satisfaction that these cuts are not just a dog whistle. I have also sought to ask myself how many of the Government’s party publicly support these cuts, and I can provide the answer to that—it is precious few. I know of members of their party who are, on the other hand, viscerally opposed to the cuts: John Major, Theresa May, Andrew Mitchell and David Davis. You might describe that as a broad spectrum of Conservative thinking and experience, not to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who will no doubt speak later and who resigned from the Government so that she could speak against the proposed cuts.

At the heart of this issue is the extraordinary fact that the Government have proposed cuts without a proper policy base to support them. There is a document called the international development review, but it is having a pretty long gestation as it circulates around departments, and it has not yet been published—indeed, some say that it has not yet been approved. Precisely what sort of Government are they who take action to breach the status quo when they have no resolved policy base? There is no question of urgency—indeed, anything but. I am convinced that abroad, these proposed cuts have damaged trust among local communities and locally engaged employees in those areas where overseas aid is effective.

These cuts have been proposed without an impact risk assessment, without considering conflict sensitivity, without regard to the many partnerships we have with other countries and without understanding that cuts are quick, but rebuilding takes longer. They have been proposed without considering the damage to our reputation, particularly among the countries of the G7. Of those who went to Cornwall, no others are cutting their aid budgets; indeed, President Biden has asked Congress for more. Worst of all is that these cuts are proposed with neither consultation nor transparency for the charities and agencies that work in the field.

Let me finish by returning to James Cowan. In the article I referred to, he said that the Halo Trust will not leave Afghanistan notwithstanding the events of last week. He said, much to my surprise, that

“Halo has cleared 850,000 landmines … in Afghanistan, and almost 14 million mines and other explosive items worldwide.”

I offer Halo as being illustrative and typical of the professionalism and commitment of so many of the agencies and charities who look to the United Kingdom for financial support for their work.

As we speak, all over the world, there are countless local, national and international charities and agencies helping to alleviate the suffering of the poor. They are helping, sometimes in difficult circumstances, to maintain human rights. They are helping to increase life chances, particularly those of girls and women. The fact is that the United Kingdom has been a notable contributor to these efforts. Indeed, our commitment is enshrined in statute. A reduction in support will diminish the effectiveness of the charities and agencies which depend on it. It will inhibit them in the valuable work they carry out. The agencies and charities deserve better from this Government.

G7 and NATO Summits

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said, this was a major breakthrough, and different countries of course have different views on what the minimum rate will be. Compromise is necessary to reach the final agreement among the 130 members of the OECD inclusive framework, but we think that the position agreed at the G7 is one that the OECD and G20 can coalesce around.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the Prime Minister, not least on his theatrical prowess, because yesterday he gave a very good performance of Dr Pangloss in the other place. I return to the point so ably made by the noble Lord, Lord West. Do the Government really appreciate that the ambitions contained in the integrated review and the agreement in Brussels for the “wholesale modernisation” of NATO will require a much larger defence budget than at present, including even the £16 billion promised by this Government over the next four years?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said, it was a very successful summit. I said in response to an earlier question that non-US allies within NATO are increasing their defence spending. The decisions and agreements made at NATO aligned very much with the integrated review, so we will certainly play a leading role, as we always do, in helping to move this forward.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 61 in my name. Indeed, in this group, there are nine amendments, Amendments 61, 62, 64, 68 to 70, 72, 76 and 77, which, in relation to Clauses 17, 18 and 19, all have the effect of moving the extension of planning permissions and listed building consent from three months to four months. I will not, at this late hour, repeat what I said at Second Reading and in rather more detail in Committee. All I want to say is that I very much appreciate that my noble friend the Minister took very seriously what I said in Committee.

We have had some extremely productive conversations on a practical level about what the construction industry’s difficulties might be with the delays in the pipeline. In pursuance of those conversations, I tabled these amendments in the hope that the Minister will tell the House that he is able to accept them. Were he to do so in response to the debate, when the time comes, I will formally move those amendments in my name.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I propose to speak only to Amendment 56, tabled by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and to which I have added my name. It is approximately seven hours since this stage of proceedings began. Throughout, I have been reminded endlessly of two lines of a poem by Robert Frost:

“But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep.”

However, noble Lords should not be apprehensive, because I hope only to make some comments in addition to those of my noble friend, to underline what I believe is the very strong case for this amendment.

At Second Reading and again in Committee, I raised the question of the impact on amenity of extending construction hours. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, will forgive me if I say that I have been a little disappointed in the responses, both from him and his noble friend the Minister who has dealt with other parts of the Bill. It is worth reminding ourselves that an extension could go on until 1 April 2021, could be seven days a week and could extend to a whole day. It does not take much to realise that there is considerable potential for impact on the amenity of households, churches, hotels, hospitals and care homes.

It is helpful to ask why planning authorities imposed conditions for working hours. As my noble friend has already indicated, the purpose is to provide a balance, and part of that balance is the protection of amenity. In every instance, an authority will have been required to reach a judgment about how that balance should be constructed. It seems to me that it follows logically that any increase in hours will tilt that balance against amenity and in favour of the applicant.

The difficulty with what we are considering is that we do not know to what extent that may occur on any one of the occasions in which an extension is sought. That is why I believe it is a matter of necessity to require applicants to produce an impact study to the planning authority, together with plans for mitigation. I believe it can reasonably be argued that that is in the interests of both the planning authority and the applicant. First of all, the planning authority is working against a very tight timetable, and, so far as the applicant is concerned, it is obviously in their interest that as much information as possible can be provided to the planning authority. I believe therefore that an impact study is a necessity.

Indeed, I go further than that: the decision of the planning authority is an administrative one, and any administrative decision of this kind could be subject to judicial review. It would be much easier to resist any such application for judicial review if it could be demonstrated that the applicant had produced the impact assessment to which I have referred and that the planning authority had taken it into its considerations.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lady Neville-Rolfe, have withdrawn from the list. I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

My Lords, at this stage in the debate, much of what I might have said has already been said eloquently, but I will focus on the working-hours provisions for a moment. They provide an illustration of the tensions between the laudable objectives of the Bill and its consequences. Noble Lords are aware that the legislation gives an authority the power to approve, refuse or amend an application for variation of hours, but it cannot do any of these without investigation. Investigation will impose additional administrative burdens on planning authorities, many of which are ill-equipped to fulfil that responsibility. That will particularly be the case in areas of high activity and construction.

Noble Lords will know from experiences elsewhere that working hours are always controversial because of their impact on amenity. When the public realise that the proposed legislation carries with it the possibility of an extension to cover a whole day, perhaps that controversy will be even greater. In the circumstances, proper account must be taken of public objection to any application. Proper opportunity must be made to ensure that that objection can be put before the local authority. As pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, proper notice must be given so that the public are aware of precisely what is proposed. All of this is to be achieved within 14 days of the application for extension being received by the local authority. Is there not a risk that a planning authority, inundated with multiple applications, will give little weight to public amenity or, in the worst case, simply ignore it? It may even take refuge in the deemed grant provisions, all at the expense of public amenity.

When one is considering the impact of the issue of hours, is it not right to consider that the same local authority may be, in relation to planning permission extensions or outlying planning permissions extensions, already engaged in responding to the responsibilities that the legislation imposes? It might be 28 days, but that is still a colossal burden in many circumstances. Even the most well-intentioned local authorities may find themselves having to accept damage to amenity that they would not normally support, except that they find themselves compelled to do so because of the terms of this legislation. I believe we should make it clear to the public that, sometimes, in this particular balance, the amenity of the public will have to take second place.

Let me finish with this. I understand the need for the hybrid powers now being offered to the Planning Inspectorate. When I first read about this, I found a commentary which said that such powers would allow it to do its work quickly and efficiently. In an area where the public has an interest, the words “quickly and efficiently” should always raise a red flag. It will be important to ensure that public participation is not in any way prejudiced by the exercise of these hybrid powers.

Media and Lobby Briefings

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I do not have a list of who was invited. I was merely given the bald statistics on numbers. If I can illuminate the noble Baroness on that matter, I will be happy to write to her.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, if the Government are committed to freedom of the press, why are government Ministers boycotting the “Today” programme?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, there is no boycott of the “Today” programme. It is entirely up to Ministers what programmes they choose to appear on. The “Today” programme does not have a constitutional right for Ministers to appear on it. Government Ministers have appeared on a range of national and regional programmes only this weekend and, indeed, yesterday and today. We have to remember that every government department has communication teams who communicate the work of the Government and Ministers very regularly indeed.