G20 and COP 29 Summits
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
From a sedentary position, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggests that was an application to be ambassador—I think not.
On all these things, the food safety agency will be involved to ensure that all products must be safe. The issue of chlorinated washed chicken previously caused enormous concern to the public, and that is why labelling is important. But I am sure these issues will be discussed as part of a new trade deal.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that this is an appropriate moment to mention Lord Prescott’s involvement in the Kyoto Protocol? I think it was one of his outstanding achievements.
Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say a little bit about the forward look for next year’s COP meeting in Belém in Brazil? With a good Brazilian Minister of the Environment who is genuinely committed to stopping the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, there are surely major opportunities now to have a somewhat less contentious approach than we had to this year’s COP. Can she also say a little bit about what we are going to do on food security, because Brazil is very relevant there. Brazil has enormous capacity for agriculture and food production but not a very active programme of development in developing countries; we have a development policy. Can we not make them work a bit better together?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments about John Prescott and Kyoto. It was one of the things of which he was most proud, and in many ways he was a man ahead of his time—many derided him on that issue but he was proved to be absolutely right. It remained an abiding passion of his right until the very end.
The noble Lord is right that the Brazil COP presents a major opportunity. Discussions are difficult when so many countries are trying to reach an agreement, so how these discussions are managed and how the countries work together is really important. The noble Lord has made the point about how the climate emergency affects every part of our lives in terms of food security and migration; they are interconnected, and that is why the role on the world stage is important. Food security is an issue that will be discussed at the next COP, because it is part and parcel of what is happening to the world with the climate emergency. The noble Lord is also right that the relationship between our country and Brazil has grown in the last few years. Certainly, at this COP, both Brazil and the UK were asked for advice on many occasions. After a very difficult COP this time, we must try to be as optimistic as we can to see what progress can be made in Brazil.
UN Sustainable Development Goals
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the debate we are having today on the UN sustainable development goals is, if anything, overdue, so the initiative by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, is doubly welcome. The hard fact is that the mid-term review of progress towards the 2030 sustainable development goals showed as much regress as progress. We in this country bear some responsibility for that, as we squeezed our overseas aid budget, cut back on our contributions to multilateral development programmes and diverted huge sums of development aid to financing Ukrainian refugees in this country. This lamentable performance was not without its cost to us in terms of waning influence in the global South. If we ignore its priorities, why should it pay much attention to ours?
Where does remedial action begin? Clearly it begins, if it does not end, with finding more overall resources for overseas aid to developing countries. Getting back to our legal obligation of 0.7% of gross national income will not be easy or quick, but it needs to start now. The Budget at the end of this month surely needs to contain some modest first steps in that direction. Let us hope it will, otherwise our credibility will be hard to sustain.
A key priority among the sustainable development goals must surely be climate change, both what we do in this country and what we do overseas through our aid programme. It would surely be better to move away from the annual wrangles at COP meetings over the global figures for developing countries to more practical and precise programmes which will help developing countries face up to a range of challenges for whose origins, as other speakers have said, they were not responsible. There should be more resources for those developing countries such as Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil and others whose action to check climate change could make a real difference; some linkage between relief for the heavily indebted countries and their action against climate change; and better ways of judging right across the board how well every country in the UN is carrying out the obligations it has freely entered into.
Then there is world health. This is now risking neglect as Covid fades into the rearview mirror, but do not doubt that there will be another global pandemic soon enough. We need to be able to spot it and take remedial action quicker than we did with Covid, and to find more equitable ways to distribute vaccines than we did on that occasion. Much will be riding on next year’s negotiations for a pandemic convention. What are the Government’s plans for that event?
Trade policy too is returning to the development agenda, after a period when freer and fairer trade worldwide was the order of the day and brought much benefit. Now, protectionism is on the rise, and we should have no illusions: if the sort of tariffs being touted by Donald Trump come into being and are replicated by other major trading nations—as was, lamentably, the case in the 1930s—then the damage to the prospects of developing countries will be real and profound. That disastrous precedent needs to be avoided if the SDGs are not to take another heavy hit.
The issues I have identified already make up a daunting agenda. Others in this debate will be added and will be every bit as important. Ducking that agenda would be a futile course, the consequences of which we would all suffer. The UK, working with other like-minded countries, has a modest capacity to make a real, positive difference, and it is in our interest so to do.
Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Can we hear from the Cross Benches now, please?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Will the Minister take the trouble to read the speech made by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar after the problems that arose recently on the border, and will he endorse the firmly calm and determined note that Mr Fabian Picardo took about the continuing possibility of getting an agreement that would benefit both sides? Will he also recognise that every time the false analogy between Chagos and Gibraltar is raised, it plays straight into the hands of the Spanish?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree. There is no comparison. This is not an issue where there can be any link. As the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has said, the important thing is that it is in the interests of Gibraltar and the local economy to ensure that we have an agreement with the EU. We are determined to achieve that.
NATO and European Political Community Meetings
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the Leader of the House; this is the first time I have spoken since she took up her new position. I also welcome that the Statement mentioned the advantage that the Prime Minister took at Blenheim to give his colleagues and partners at that meeting the two key points in the gracious Speech about our relations with other European countries and the European Union: the reset and the pact of security in the widest sense.
I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that the next country to chair the European Political Community is Hungary and there is due to be a meeting there, presumably in Budapest, in the second half of this year. The Prime Minister of Hungary is a past master of pretending that he is something that he is not: the representative of the European Union. His rotating presidency gives him no right to that; that is a matter for the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. Can the Leader of the House assure me that we are alert to attempts that may be made to peddle the aberrant views on the Ukraine conflict held by the Prime Minister of Hungary?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. First, I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition; he asked me a question that I forgot to respond to. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will not mind that I address that. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about the Global Combat Air Programme, an intergovernmental organisation. An order will come forward to this House, probably on Monday; I will propose a Business of the House Motion to allow that to come forward. I will send him information about that; I think that the Chief Whips have already spoken.
On Hungary, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that his question is probably one for the European Union rather than me. It is worth restating that we stand completely in solidarity with Ukraine—that is an ironclad commitment. There have been different views within the EU—Hungary, is notably one of them—but the EU has spoken with one voice and stands with Ukraine.
Israel and Gaza
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his comments about my right honourable friend and for his general comments. He picked up what the Prime Minister said in the Statement: that we must not rush to judgment before we have all the facts. I think my noble friend implied that it was something of an understatement by the Prime Minister on the effects of the misreporting. It is important that the Prime Minister is seeking to use measured language, but there is no doubt that widespread unrest followed the reporting around that hospital blast. As my noble friend said, misinformation also spread across social media from various sources.
The Culture Secretary has spoken to Tim Davie on several occasions. The BBC and other broadcasters recognise that they have a duty to provide accurate and impartial news and information, particularly when it comes to coverage of highly sensitive events. The BBC has admitted that mistakes were made. It should reflect on its coverage and learn lessons for the future, but it is an important part of our free society—I underline this—to recognise that the BBC is independent of government. Editorial decisions are rightly not something that the Government interfere with or should interfere with. However, we would expect all media outlets to report on this inflammatory situation responsibly and accurately.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Leader of the House say a few words of gratitude and admiration, which I hope would be in the name of the whole House, for the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency? It is reported that some 17 from that agency have lost their lives in Gaza. They are working day and night, in Gaza and of course in the West Bank, and it would be good if we could send them a message of support. The £20 million announced today is of course enormously welcome, but is that the final word or will a revisiting of that be possible if this crisis, alas, continues?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, on the second part I am not able to comment. I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to the degree of support the Prime Minister and Government have already announced.
The noble Lord is quite right about the important role of the UN agencies; they are, in effect, the conduit for aid going into Gaza. UNRWA has a unique mandate from the UN General Assembly, as the noble Lord knows, to protect and provide protection and core services to Palestinian refugees across the Middle East. It is a vital humanitarian and stabilising force in the region.
The Government are clear that the final status of Palestinian refugees must be agreed as part of eventual peace negotiations. Until then, the UN remains firmly committed to supporting UNRWA and those who work with it. It is worth recalling that it provides basic education to more than 500,000 children per year, half of whom are girls, access to health services for 3.5 million Palestinian refugees and social safety net assistance for around 390,000 of the most vulnerable across the region. So, yes, I can give the noble Lord the assurance he asked for.
The Importance of the Relationship Between the United Kingdom and India
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, at the beginning of this month, India took over the chair of the G20. In a few months’ time, it will overtake China as the world’s most populous nation—perhaps not an unmixed blessing but still one with geopolitical consequences. So what better moment to review our own country’s relationship with India? All credit and thanks are due to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for making that possible. The two excellent maiden speeches that we have had, as well as the unique valedictory speech, show the width of interest in our relationship with India.
The histories of Britain and India have been deeply intertwined for the past several hundred years, but as we look now to the future, we need to remember that the different views of our mutual experience are part of a complex picture, and not invariably a positive one. For many Indians, Britain stands for damage to their economy, for the use of force to overthrow their rulers, and for terrible human rights abuses—the Amritsar massacre prominent among them. For Britons, there may still be traces of imperial nostalgia, and there is justifiable pride at promoting a free press, freedom of speech, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law—my own grandfather was a High Court judge in Madras—and one of India’s accepted languages, our own tongue. These histories contain many contradictions which need to be borne in mind but not to be predominant.
Currently, one has to begin with trade relations, since negotiations for an India-UK free trade agreement are ongoing. That is a worthwhile objective. But we really should cease setting artificial deadlines for their completion—“all done and dusted by Diwali” last October was the most recent one—and we should remember that those who show excessive neediness for a deal are likely to pay a price for it. India has a history of trade protectionism—after all, it scuppered the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations—so a free trade deal on the basis of effective reciprocity, a characteristic not always evident in some recent trade deals that the Government have struck, will be a challenge not best achieved by excessive haste.
The Indo-Pacific tilt proclaimed in the Johnson Government’s security review is currently the object of further reflection following Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. That war has upended every previous analysis and cannot be ignored. Britain’s security requires not only continuing support for Ukraine but the strengthening of our contribution to NATO. That does not mean that we have lost an interest in seeing peaceful stability restored to India’s Himalayan border with China, in securing freedom of passage through the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the East China Sea, and in avoiding any attack on Taiwan. However, we cannot be everywhere and do everything, and we should not pretend that we can, if only because our claim would not be credible. I suggest that we need to look for ways of co-operating with India in sophisticated areas of military, technology and training to enhance the deterrence of an overassertive China.
We really must not neglect our soft power assets, which have a particular significance in our relationship with India, given our common use of the English language, the BBC’s overseas services, the British Council and our universities. But we are cutting back spending on the first two, and the Home Secretary seems to believe that making it easier for Indian students, particularly post-graduate students, to come to UK universities is something that should be discouraged, even when India clearly wants to make access easier. Does it make any sense to thus damage one of our most valuable invisible exports and, at the same time, to make conclusion of our trade negotiations more difficult?
I have said enough already to illustrate why the eminently desirable objective of strengthening Britain’s relations with India will not be entirely straightforward—and that is without even mentioning legitimate concerns about the effect of the Indian Government’s tendencies towards majoritarian treatment of their minorities and of their effect on their obligations under the UN and other international conventions. These cannot simply be overlooked, nor can the opportunistically limp Indian reaction to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am coming to a conclusion.
Let us hope that India’s chairing of the G20 will be marked, as it was in the case of Indonesia, by a better response to flagrant breaches of international law. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to some of these points when he replies to the debate.
Global Britain
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We have set out our negotiating mandate and what we intend to discuss with the EU in this WMS. That is the basis upon which we will be taking forward our discussions. What the Prime Minister has made very clear is that we are looking to negotiate an FTA like Canada’s, covering goods, services and co-operation in other areas. That is what we have set out, that is the position we will be starting with, and we look forward to engaging with the EU over the coming months in order to make sure that we have an excellent deal for both sides.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister answer the question she has already been asked but did not answer, which is why we signed up on Friday to a level playing field and on Monday we seem to find it pretty rebarbative? Which is the real position of the Government: what was in the political declaration or what is being stated now? Secondly, if the fallback position, as I understand it from the Statement, will be to trade on what are, somewhat misleadingly, called Australian terms, why is Australia now trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union when being without one is such a spiffing deal?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I responded to the noble Baroness, there is no requirement for alignment under the withdrawal agreement, and the political declaration sets out our commitment to discuss open and fair competition as part of negotiations on an ambitious future relationship. As we have also made clear, we want to negotiate a free trade agreement like Canada’s. If that is not possible we will look to have a trading relationship based on the 2019 deal on the lines of Australia’s, but our ambition is higher.
Brexit: Negotiations
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Baroness for her constructive comments. She is right that I will not be stepping into negotiations from the Dispatch Box, but I can certainly reiterate that, as I said in answer to the noble Baroness, in his letter to President Juncker the Prime Minister makes clear that this is a broad landing zone, within which we believe a deal can take shape. As I said, his chief negotiator has gone to Brussels to continue the intense negotiations. We will be discussing the concerns or ideas raised by President Juncker, President Tusk and the Taoiseach as we go forward over the next few days.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister could answer a couple of questions, after one observation, which is that in order to reach a landing zone you have to take off first. The two questions I would like to ask are as follows.
On this vexed issue of consent, I do not want to go into what would happen, but can she confirm that, under the arrangements for government in Northern Ireland, either of the two main parties—Sinn Féin or the DUP—could, during the transitional period or at the moment of the four-year review, frustrate the continuation of the arrangements that have been negotiated, either by opposing them or by bringing down the Government? Could she answer that factual question? It is in the hands of either of them, and I am not pointing the finger at the DUP only, to frustrate the operation of this agreement.
Secondly, the Prime Minister has had quite a lot of Brussels experience—although his misrepresentation of what went on there led one to doubt whether he really understood what was going on—but has he ever in his life seen a process of the sort he is now describing being completed in the time available to this, before 31 October? If not, what does he intend to do about it?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord is right: if consent was withheld, the arrangements would not come into force or would lapse after one year. On his second point, the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to and putting his full energy into achieving a deal that can get through the House of Commons in the timeframe he has set out. We have faith and trust that he will do that.
Leaving the European Union
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, we want to deliver on the first referendum. The people said they wanted to leave the EU; we have been in negotiations with the EU for several years now; and we now have a deal that we believe is the best way to leave the EU in an orderly way, and we can then begin our discussions on the future relationship—the fruitful, productive and positive future relationship—that we want going forward. But we need to have this withdrawal Bill passed in order that we can move on to do that.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister clarify a point? The Statement suggested that the only thing necessary for the exit to take place on 1 August was for the House of Commons to vote on a Second Reading. Is she not aware that the European Parliament has still not ratified that agreement? The Statement also made reference to the fact that the political declaration would need to be redrafted. Is she aware that that will also take a certain amount of time and might well exceed the amount before 1 August? Finally, there was a long list of wonderful things that will happen on 1 August if the House of Commons does give it a Second Reading, none of which will actually happen. On free movement, for example, can the Minister confirm that, should the withdrawal treaty enter into force on 1 August, free movement will continue until at least the end of 2020?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord is absolutely right that the Bill would need to be ratified by both Houses of this Parliament and the European Parliament within that timeframe. There is a June Council, and if changes are needed to the political declaration, the aim would be to go to the June Council to seek them and have discussions then. The noble Lord is absolutely right about the timescale, and I am well aware of it.
Business of the House
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I had not planned to speak, but I am literally moved to tell your Lordships what my feelings are. I have spent 55 years teaching and studying law, including constitutional law. If you want to know how effective I am, I have had in my lectures the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The point about studying law—and probably many people in this House practise or have practised as lawyers—is that you internalise respect for the rule of law.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, explained about us not having a written constitution. Our constitution works only because of trust. Why do we accept the authority of the Lord Speaker, whoever he or she may be? Why do we accept the rulings of the clerks, disguised as they are in their wigs? It is because we trust them and because this has gone on for centuries. It is not a question of personalities; it is a question of the role that people fill. Each Session we take an oath, standing by the Dispatch Box, to be loyal to the Queen and, implicitly, to uphold the law. Why do judges not interfere with the proceedings of Parliament? There is no question of anyone challenging this law if it goes through today because the judges accept that Parliament deserves their trust. We trust the judges and they trust Parliament, and if that breaks down, the whole system breaks down. Not only is the constitution being damaged and trashed today but we have been subjected to gagging orders. I am speaking now because I think that, if I wait another five minutes, there will be another Motion to stop us talking.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Can she categorise in terms of respect for constitutional convention and order a Government who are defeated in the House of Commons by 230 votes and just carry on, then have another vote on the same thing and are defeated by 180 votes and then carry on? Is that not a little odd in terms of practice?
Baroness Deech
It is unusual but it is not unconstitutional, because it lies in the power of the House of Commons to put an end to that situation, if it wishes to, by getting rid of the Prime Minister or passing the withdrawal agreement. We are suffering from a lack of trust that is about to come upon us, as I said. The constitutional damage may be irreversible.
I will add that there has been a lot of loose talk about sovereignty and Parliament taking control. We do not have our sovereignty; we gave it up in part when we joined the EU, and we will not recover it until we leave. At the moment we are like prisoners rattling the cage while outside the warders have the keys. We can debate all we like here, but we can see from this Bill that the EU 27 will tell us what to do. What is the point of delay, and of advising this and that, when they have said that they will not alter the withdrawal agreement, and the power lies with them?
I am sorry to say that I blame this breakdown in respect of the constitution in part on the EU. The effect of the EU has been to preside over judicial corruption across Europe; to preside over financial mismanagement and a lack of accountability in Brussels; to allow creeping right-wing extremism across Europe; to allow the appointment of Juncker when we did not want it; and to accept the appointment of Selmayr, apparently breaking all the rules that there are. This disregard for the constitution and for the rules that the EU itself lays down, which are flagrantly disobeyed by Poland, Hungary and others, is now lapping around our ankles.
Unless we uphold the constitution by following every little bit of our rules today—albeit that this might require people to be brief in their remarks, as I will be—the damage will be incredible. People out there who respect us, who respect the law, who do not need to be whipped into submission or coerced and who obey the police and the rule of law will wonder why they too have internalised the legal system if we cannot do so. We have to believe in our own legal system and our own procedure.
Lord Lilley
Let me therefore do so. The amendment,
“notes that more than one day is required for this House to have sufficient time to scrutinise the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill”.
I submit that several days are required and that it is worth taking those days, even if it means leaving on WTO terms—because they are quite acceptable. First, we would keep £39 billion. That was the opinion of this House. I trust the committee which concluded that and I would be quite happy to submit to international arbitration, because I certainly would not want to not meet any legal obligations that we have. So £39 billion is a positive.
Secondly, we would end uncertainty.