Yemen

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Thursday 13th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, as I sought to outline, although I did not go into detail in the first response, we look at these matters thoroughly every single time, so we have consolidated criteria by which we operate every single application. That applies to all export applications, not only to those where it would be at first sight obvious that any material might be involved in conflict. I can add for the noble Lord that my honourable friend Tobias Ellwood, the Minister for the Middle East, has travelled overnight to Saudi Arabia to have meetings with Yemeni and Saudi leaders, including Yemeni President Hadi, as the UK along with others have expressed our concerns over the continuing conflict. Discussions will focus on the air strike on the funeral hall in Sanaa on Saturday and on the attempts to revive the political process.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, what action will be taken against those civil servants and officials who deliberately misled Ministers into believing that arms being sold by British companies were not being used in Yemen when they knew the contrary to be true and they were deliberately misleading Ministers? In so far as they cannot be held in contempt, because they did not give that evidence to Select Committees of Parliament, what action will be taken against them?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am not aware that there was a misleading. I am just guessing, but I think that the noble Lord may be referring back to a Written Ministerial Statement in September that sought to correct a series of PQs and Westminster Hall debates about alleged breaches of humanitarian law. The noble Lord shows his assent to my assumption. I read out as a Statement here an Answer to an Urgent Question in another place which made it clear that policy was not changed; the fact was that changes were made to ensure that the parliamentary record was consistent and that it accurately reflects policy. There was no need to change the information that I gave to this House, and I stress that. I am not aware that I have been misled by officials at any time.

Iran Nuclear Talks

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I am grateful to my noble friend for reiterating the support that I know she has expressed from her Benches before for the way in which these matters are taken forward. She asked me to bear in mind the pattern of elections. I can certainly assure her that those matters are borne in mind. I also ought to say that all those who are taking part in the negotiations bear in mind more technical details, too, regarding religious festivals in Iran, here and in the rest of Europe. That is why the next stage of the negotiations is beginning this very month. There will be no hesitation. The negotiations will begin before Christmas so that after four months we can have a framework of political agreement and we will then have the technical work that will provide the final result by the end of June.

My noble friend asked what will happen now that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has completed the period for which she was “signed up”, if I may use that expression. She has given more of her time than she was due to give, so we express all thanks to her for that. This is a matter for the new Commissioner, Mrs Mogherini, to decide, and I am sure that she will be in discussions over that.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, in terms of the debate going on inside Iran—the debate on television, on the radio and in the rest of the media—about developments in Vienna, is not one of the complicating issues of this whole affair the fact that the state of Israel refuses to give up its nuclear weapons and that many people on the streets in Iran simply cannot understand the position being taken by the western powers?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, who I know has great experience in foreign affairs matters—we have discussed them—that I think that the question is a lot more complicated than that. As we know, Israel is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Iran is not. There are meetings with regard to the treaty next year, when a lot of these matters will be under discussion. I was interested to note last night that Mr Netanyahu made it clear that no deal is better than a bad deal. I think that that was an important thing for him to say, because it reflects exactly our view that, in order to achieve security there, we need a good deal for all.

Iran: Nuclear Programme

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Thursday 30th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My noble friend is right to draw attention to the importance of stability in the region and why these negotiations are so crucial. The position of the United Kingdom is that we aim to have an agreement in place by 24 November. If we were to talk about what we might do after that, we would be saying that we have no hope of delivery. We have hope.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not true that if Israel gave up its nuclear weapons, the Iranians would probably not wish to proceed to develop their own?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I find it difficult to get into the mind of one member of any other Government, let alone the minds of all members, and sometimes my own—I mean my own mind, of course. It is a serious question. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaties; Israel is not.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that our two debates today are time limited in the normal manner of Thursday debates. The number of those taking part means that for Back-Benchers in both our debates today the time is limited to seven minutes. I remind all speakers that when they have reached the time allocated to them, the number on the clock means one’s time is up and at that stage one should conclude one’s remarks. I also remind noble Lords that if they are content to take interventions on their speeches, the time taken on the intervention comes out of the time allocated to the Peer who has accepted the intervention. That is indeed the nature of our proceedings. Our time-limited debates are exactly that.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

On that question, this matter was raised last week. Some of us feel very strongly that if we are to have a free debate in this Parliament, then interventions should not be taken out of the contribution of the Member. We are destroying debate in the way that the House is now conducting its debates.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I can hear some assent, but the fact is that if interventions are allowed as freewheeling additions—I entirely understand the argument of the noble Lord that interventions assist a proper debate—then one simply does not have time-limited debates, unless of course the House would be content with the fact that time would run out and Peers who had contributed to debates had no response from a Minister. I know that that is not the wish of this House. If Peers wish to abandon the idea of time-limited debates, that is a wide matter for debate, not a matter for debate today.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I am sorry to come back again but the facts are that this is not the Commons, where interventions take up a lot of time during the course of a debate. Interventions in this House are rare, and I cannot see why we cannot allow a little time for interventions on the rare occasions that they take place.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear the affirmation from the noble Lord that this is not just an echo of another place. Here every Peer can have a voice. When we have time-limited debates, every Peer is allowed to sign up. The other side of that is that in a time-limited debate every Peer should be allowed their voice, and if there are lengthy interventions at the beginning of a debate, it will mean simply that those who are to speak later are denied their voice. This is a House that respects the conventions of the way in which we work, and I know that we will have two very effective debates today.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Monday 18th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, perhaps I had better respond before the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, rises to speak. It is merely a matter of timing. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has ownership of most of the amendments in the first group. The reason it is convenient to do it in this way is that the House would not have a chance to listen to the leaders by the time that any mover of those amendments decided whether to withdraw or even to press them. Again, it is simply a matter of timing so that we all have an opportunity to listen to what the leaders set out. Just the opening remarks alone will make it too late for us to get into the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. I think it would be difficult for this House to proceed with a fair consideration of the amendments today.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, do the amended arrangements for business have implications for the deferred Procedure Committee meeting to be held at 5.30 pm today?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the committee will meet at 5.30 pm as previously agreed.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, reports are often published when neither House is sitting. I have given the answer that at the moment we do not have sight of that report. It is keenly awaited and has not yet even reached the last committee stage. It would be premature for me even to consider giving any undertakings as to business management and I do not propose to do so.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

On the question of the £490,000 to which the noble Baroness referred, where will that now go? Could it go back into our budgets and be spent on Select Committee work? As the noble Baroness knows, the Liaison Committee has been under considerable pressure on the matter of resources.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for trying to assist the House in making savings. He is a valued member of the Administration and Works Committee, a job that I know he takes very seriously since I serve on that committee with him. However, I regret to say that there will not be any savings as such because of the hard-working nature of this House. I should explain that in the calendar year 2011, whereas another place sat for 149 days, this House sat for 156 days, so we actually cost another week. I can give an assurance that in the forthcoming Session, 2012-13, we will sit overall for the same number of weeks as the House of Commons. It is just that we have a slightly different pattern of sitting days.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, our first business today is the Second Reading of a fast-track Bill, the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill. I understand that none of those down to speak at Second Reading propose to table amendments to the Bill. With the agreement of each of those speaking and with the agreement of the usual channels, I therefore propose that the remaining stages of the Bill be taken formally immediately after Second Reading, unless any noble Lord objects now or during the Second Reading debate. We will therefore proceed with the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill, followed by a further day in Committee of the whole House on the Localism Bill. As we have seen from the Annunciators, at a convenient point after 5.30 pm, my noble friend Lord Howe will repeat as a Statement an Urgent Question from the other place on the future of Southern Cross care homes. That will be followed immediately by my noble friend Lord Marland repeating a Statement on electricity market reform. We will end the day, I hope, with the notification of Royal Assent on the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Might I ask the noble Baroness whether the usual channels have agreed to a debate on BSkyB? Could we have a Statement on that?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, since I have made a business statement, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is of course in order to ask a question on a different matter. I assure him that productive discussions are going ahead within the usual channels on just that matter.

Defence: Reform

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, we are about to have a debate to deal with these abuses.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He is trying to remind us that there is a House full of people wishing to start the next debate. I know that the noble and gallant Lord and others see this change in organisation at the Ministry of Defence as also highly important, but I remind the House that during Statements,

“although brief comments and questions from all quarters of the House are allowed, statements should not be made the occasion for immediate debate”.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours that questions and comments should be brief.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Before I speak on Schedule 2, I shall comment on the arrangements for the dinner hour to place on record that I object. I understand that there may have been agreement, but I am speaking as an individual Member. If we are a civilised House and we are to debate matters in a civilised way, we are entitled to proper mealtimes, and I think an hour should be made available for dinner. I say to the Patronage Secretary to the Government, the Government Chief Whip, that in future it would be very helpful if she could adopt a more civilised approach to our dining arrangements in the evening.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I hear, of course, what the noble Lord says. This was an agreement with usual channels with his own Opposition Whips’ Office this morning. No representation was made to the contrary. It was an agreement made and, therefore, we stuck to our side of that agreement.

The House does wish to hear views on the Schedule 2 stand part debate. I am sure that the whole House wishes to make progress on this matter.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

All I am saying is that, as an individual Member of the House, I object. Whether it was agreed by the usual channels or not is of no particular interest to me. All I am saying is that I think it is fair and more civilised that we can dine for a full hour.

I would like now to move to Schedule 2. A particular part of the schedule that is of interest to me is the question of the provision of polling stations, which is a matter of considerable controversy in constituencies throughout the country. Rule 13(1) in Schedule 2 states:

“The counting officer must provide a sufficient number of polling stations and, subject to the following provisions of this rule, must allot the electors to the polling stations in whatever manner the officer thinks most convenient”.

Rule 13(2) states:

“One or more polling stations may be provided in the same room”

Rule 13(3) states:

“In England, the polling station allotted to electors from any parliamentary polling district wholly or partly within a particular voting area must, in the absence of special circumstances, be in the parliamentary polling place for that district unless the parliamentary polling place is outside the voting area”.

Rule 9 refers to the use of schools and public rooms:

“The counting officer may use, free of charge, for the purpose of taking the poll—

(a) a room in a school within paragraph (3)”.

Paragraph (3) of rule 9 then goes on to make provision for schools in England and Wales, and in Scotland.

Now, the location of polling stations in individual constituencies—not only in elections, but particularly in this referendum—has a major effect on turnout. We cannot rely on a postal vote system, which some of us have great reservations about anyhow although it was part of the package introduced by the previous Government. Of course, the Government themselves obviously had reservations about what they were doing on postal voting, but it was felt that those changes would bring greater integrity into the electoral system. The question is, if turnout is affected by polling station location, to what extent can the public indicate where they believe polling stations should be situated?

We know that parish authorities very often make representations to local authorities to secure the location. Also, other organisations within individual communities —schools, church groups, women’s institutes and all kinds of voluntary organisations—sometimes make representations. I have found over the years that very often there is indifference within local authorities to the protests of people who object to the location of polling stations, particularly to where they are inconvenient. I remember that, in my then constituency in the county of Cumbria, on occasions I would go to the local authority and say, “Look, provision here isn’t satisfactory”. Very often the local authority was very sensitive, and changes would be made.

I now live in Maidenhead and when I voted on the last occasion I had to drive a tremendous distance, even within the town, to go and vote. When I got there, I found the polling station split into various sections, all of which received electors coming in from various parts of Maidenhead. I believe that is wrong. The question is: what chance does an individual elector have to influence decisions on the location of polling stations?

My view is that there should be some mechanism that is much more substantial than current arrangements for allowing individual electors and organisations to influence the location of these stations, particularly as their location affects turnout, which is now one of the major issues in Britain’s elections. We are seeing progressive reductions in turnout in both general and council elections, so we must find ways of addressing that problem. One way is to increase the number of polling stations. I hope that, in replying to this debate, the noble Lord might comment on this problem which I think arises in many communities.