European Union

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The UK has no plans for an EU-wide youth mobility scheme. There will be no return to freedom of movement, and that includes in relation to school trips. Although the UK recognises the deep importance of cultural and educational exchanges between the UK and other nations, any discussions and decisions relating to our policy on school trip travel have to be made with due regard to the proper functioning of our immigration system.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, what role will the European Political Community, which is quite new, play in this new togetherness and reset?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The European Political Community summit at Blenheim Palace on 18 July strengthened our relationships in Europe and included discussions on Ukraine and migration. At that summit we also secured support from 44 countries and the EU for tough new action against Russia’s shadow fleet of ships that evade oil sanctions, so actions are coming out of the EPC.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, my concern is whether this project and the Bill fulfil the prime aim—the essential and vital aim—of keeping fresh the memory of the most satanic massacre in recorded history of one of the world’s greatest and most brilliant peoples. Some say that Stalin killed many more, but there is no doubt in my mind that it was the systematic, organised and almost enthusiastic slaughter and murder—in the way that was particularly revolting in the gas chambers—that marks out the Holocaust as the worst of all and the most terrible thing that could happen and could be done by man to man and woman to woman. Does the Bill do what my noble friend Lord Cameron asked at the beginning? It must be a permanent reminder; does it fulfil that function? I have to give a qualified answer: not as it is organised.

In many speeches this afternoon, we have heard the common theme that it is the location that is the problem—it is the location that chokes. Of course, with the location goes the security problems outlined so vividly by some speakers. That is why one has to reluctantly agree with all sorts of authorities, including the Times newspaper, which called it a bungled effort by all parties and a national embarrassment, and said that something is wrong and has to be put right if we are to get near that prime aim.

What is wrong with it being in Victoria Tower Gardens, a small park? The answer is that it will be huge, on a Baalbek pillar scale. I do not know whether colleagues have examined all the photos of what is intended—we have to judge by the photos—but they are absolutely terrible. It dominates; the photos present an enormous feature, quite out of keeping with all the features around and with the glorious Palace in which we work at present—although it will presumably lie empty for a time ahead. It will obviously suffocate and completely blot out the statues, which my noble friend Lady Bottomley spoke about so beautifully a few minutes ago. These represent the suffragettes, a fantastic cause, and our fight against slavery, of which I am very proud, although it seems to get overlooked half the time. There is also the “Burghers of Calais”, reminding us of the price of freedom.

If anyone wants to see where we should be going on this line, they should go to Berlin, to the heart of where the horror was authorised. Go to the memorial—those beautiful granite blocks. It is not too tiring but just right. When the rain falls, they are the tears of those who were slaughtered and of those left behind. It is right next door to the Führerbunker, where the arch-murderer of all lived and, thankfully, died. That gives a feeling of the idea and size we should work for.

The 1900 Act said that it had to be a park for ever, and this Act says that it is not going to be a park for ever; it is going to be dominated by a project and a structure which I do not believe does justice to the cause, honour or memory of the Jewish people, of whom I am a huge admirer. It falls short of the adequate homage to their suffering, of which we should always be reminding ourselves, and so should our children and grandchildren.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said it all at the beginning in her superb and accurate speech. Common sense just cries out in this whole situation. The previous Government seemed towards the end of their days to be encased in a fatal Westminster bubble, cut off from common sense. It was a long descent from the first and second Cameron Governments, which my noble friend led so ably. A connection with what most sensible people were doing throughout this country had been lost. As a result, this is now widely regarded as a major mishandling and mistake, which we must put right, but neither the past nor the present Government seem to realise this.

I will certainly support the Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, if she puts it to a vote. I shall also be guided entirely by the proverbial common sense of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who put the words into everyone’s minds and mouths: that we should put behind us this ridiculous difference, created by the obviously wrong location decision, and get on and build a good, genuine memorial that works, in the right place and of the right design. That is what we should be capable of doing on both sides of politics and in the organisation of government of this country.

The Union (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Friday 20th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I served with pride on the committee that produced this report. We worked very hard for more than a full year under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, whose fine speech surveying and presenting the report we have just heard. We benefited enormously from having the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, as a member; we also had the acute observations of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. We will hear from both of them shortly. To quote yesterday’s psalm, I think that, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, will come before your Lordships “with a song” that will give us a new perspective on the debate.

Two major themes have come out of all this work. First, in this age of hyperconnectivity, instant communication and heightened identity, a modern union must be based not entirely on the legalisms of history or overly rigid interpretations of our unwritten constitution but on consent and the renewed attractions of belonging to a United Kingdom that fits into the 21st century.

Secondly, we are not talking about saving the union, which sounds backward-looking. We are talking about building a better union for the 21st century and beyond. Scotland is an ancient kingdom of unparalleled talent and influence. The last 300 years or so of British progress have depended heavily—almost entirely—on Scotland and its leadership in almost every sphere. Its international footprint is huge across the planet, with respect and detailed patterns of co-operation between neighbours that are outlined so well in the Dunlop review, which I have referred to. They are the very minimum that we should have been practising in the past, but we clearly have not done so with either Scotland or the other devolved nations.

Much more that is positive and highly beneficial to both partners in the union that is Scotland and England is now required. At the moment, we are struggling in the quagmire between reserved and devolved powers. On present trends, if we leave things unchanged, ahead there stretches a long avenue of bitter disputes as we ceaselessly try to define the limits between reserved powers and devolved powers. It is a struggle that can only ever be settled temporarily, because of a background of very fast-moving conditions with which tidy legal definitions can never hope to keep up.

For example, short of building a wall between Scotland and England, people can never be prevented from travelling and mixing, or families prevented from living between the two neighbouring states. Industry and trade conditions, woven together over centuries, can never be neatly kept apart, as the opposition of Holyrood to the Australian trade agreement implies that they can. It cannot be done. Security can never be split. It must cover every part of the British landmass to operate properly. For these integrated areas of life in the UK to work, there must be a new level of trust and respect and a new understanding, however much it is devolved in law. Throwing the legal book at the parties on either side cannot lead to consent. The only possible mix is one of practical arrangements, constantly being refreshed to meet new conditions, all within our joint, unwritten and highly flexible constitution.

Within that framework, many more powers can be devolved. The sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament can continue to be shared in practice, if not in theory, on the basis of being lent to a second Parliament in Scotland and, if it demands it, in Wales too. In Northern Ireland we already have one, in Stormont, although as we debated in this Chamber an hour or two ago, it is currently mired in local problems. As for the monarchy, that can continue to be shared. Most sensible SNP supporters—all but the extreme separatists—want that. Defence can be shared, foreign policy and external trade policy can be worked out first and shared, far more consensually than in the past, and then pursued by a joint and agreed team. For the rest, respect, real trust, good will and lots of reasonable flexibility can handle all the arrangements and keep our two old nations nicely in constant unison, powerfully reinforcing and renewing the union, to the infinite benefit of both and the other devolved nations as well.

It is all in our report before us today. I am biased in favour of Scotland, but I am also biased in favour of the union. For all the past bitterness, for all the arguments over our relations with our European neighbours and for all the differences, including even the gender ones which are in the news today, this is the formula that commands the real support among the utterly sensible majority of the Scottish people.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

In my ignorance, I am not totally sure which department my noble friend is closest to; she seems to answer on every conceivable subject these days. Will she tell her friends in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to give particular attention to the knotty problem of giving Scotland a greater voice in our external affairs, treaty arrangements and international repositioning with all the other countries of the world? That is where a lot of our fate will be decided. One of the most bitter feelings the committee heard from our witnesses was that Scotland was an ancient nation which did have an international footprint but appeared to have no real say in deciding our international position. Could she give a push in that direction, please?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that, and I certainly will. I do not do anything with the Foreign Office, but I will certainly take that back. I am in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but we also do some of the work on the union.

I thank noble Lords once again for their contributions today, and I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for moving the debate and for her speech. I look forward to continuing this important discussion and working collaboratively on all the issues raised by noble Lords today.

Sewel Convention

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I do not recognise that the Sewel convention is as broken down as that, in the sense that 47 legislative consent Motions for 23 Acts in the first Session and 28 legislative consent Motions in the second Session were secured and passed by the devolved legislatures. This is new machinery that obviously takes time to bed in, but I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has met on countless occasions—there have been 440 ministerial meetings—and the Prime Minister has met four times with the First Minister of Scotland and the Welsh leader, so those meetings are taking place. I ask noble Lords to give this machinery a chance.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Could this constant dilemma of the edges of devolved powers in ever-changing circumstances be in any way handled better by strengthening the common framework processes, which have been successful so far in taking the difficulty out of some of these difficult areas?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for raising common frameworks, which I know this House has spent quite a bit of time working on and refining. I am sure that they provide a guideline on how we should engage with the devolved Administrations and will help to strengthen the union as a consequence.