Afghanistan: British Special Forces
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the tenor of his remarks. Yes, it is the case that the RMP has asked the BBC, the “Panorama” production team, to produce this evidence on which it founded the programme. If that evidence is produced and it is new evidence it will fully investigated and it will initially be the task of the Royal Military Police to do that. The police are independent of the chain of command and have the power to pursue these matters objectively and independently and in the best interests of serving justice.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also pay tribute very strongly to our Armed Forces personnel but, as the Minister said, these are grave allegations, especially in the context where, as we see with Ukraine, the moral leadership and professionalism of our Armed Forces and the reputation that we hold is very strong as far as the UK is concerned. Can the Minister be a bit more specific on the independent status of the Royal Military Police in how it will approach the new allegations? Would the Minister agree that there is a case for, and an opportunity for, a parallel, external, independent review of how these allegations are held? Ultimately the Royal Military Police Force is, as the Minister said, beyond the chain of command, but it is still an internal investigative authority.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that the Royal Military Police is indeed an independent investigatory authority that has been regarded as professional and effective. It engages regularly with its civilian counterparts to ensure that it is adopting best practice and pursuing the best approach for investigations. Initially, if new evidence is produced, it would be for the Royal Military Police to investigate that.
As to broader issues, the Secretary of State has been very clear that nothing is ruled out. Really, the starting point has to be whether there is new evidence. If so, it needs to be produced.
Ajax Noise and Vibration Review
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, £3.2 billion has been spent, with only a couple of dozen of the Ajax tanks delivered out of an order for 589, all of which are supposed to be delivered by 2024 with a total cost of £5.5 billion. The Public Accounts Committee in the other place has called it a catastrophe. How has it come to this? It has to be the biggest defence procurement failure of the last decade, does it not?
Now we have a further damning review just published by the Government called the Ajax Noise and Vibration Review. It catalogues failure after failure of process, accountability and procedures. Some 310 soldiers were exposed to noise and vibration, with a small number discharged because of hearing loss. According to the review, senior Army officers and MoD officials knew of these problems for two years before any action was taken. How and why was that possible? Who knew? Did Ministers know?
The review’s conclusions are stark and extremely worrying, not only first and foremost for our soldiers but for what it means for a central part of our future military capability. I quote directly from the Government’s own report:
“Nothing in this Review detracts from the fact that GDUK has designed and built what MOD maintains is thus far a vehicle which is not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification.”
What does the Minister have to say to that specific quote? The report concludes that
“from a cultural perspective, the Army did not believe it was potentially causing harm to people, especially from vibration, as it was tacitly expected that soldiers can and should endure such issues. Society and the law expect MOD to do better”.
Is the MoD doing better? What has changed? Who is being held to account? We cannot tell from the review what is actually happening.
One of my final quotes directly from the review is:
“Within the acquisition system, safety is not viewed as an equal partner to cost, schedule and military capability, and the culture in MOD does not currently ensure safety is considered within strategic decision-making.”
The word is “currently”. Does the Minister recognise that term—not 10 years ago but currently? What is urgently being done to change that culture? What steps are being taken? Are any other defence procurement projects subject to such a culture? Even during the Minister’s Statement yesterday in the other place, he talked of reports such as that from the Defence Safety Authority in May 2020 identifying some of these issues, entitled Serious Safety Concerns on Ajax, and then tells us that that was retracted and not pursued. Who retracted the report? Who decided not to pursue it? Where are they now? Have they been promoted? Have they been sacked? Was any Minister aware of it and, if not, why not? The Government’s response is to have announced that following this review they are to launch another review. To what purpose and timescale is that further review to operate?
This is deeply disturbing and unsatisfactory. Ajax is in limbo. A major military capability for this country is in real trouble. Are the Government sticking with Ajax or are they going to scrap it? What confidence can we have that they have a grip of the Ajax programme? Are we sure that there is no impact on the Army’s ability to deploy the planned strike brigade?
As the review concludes:
“To have confidence that the events covered in this report will not be repeated, culture change needs to be progressed.”
For the sake of our Armed Forces and the security of our country, it certainly needs to be. I am sure that we will all appreciate the remarks of the Minister in response to this serious and damning report.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I can associate these Benches with many of the questions from the noble Lord. He rightly highlights the fact that many government assertions over recent years have not been matched with what we now learn from the review.
I agree with the Minister in the House of Commons when he indicated that he read the report with a deep sense of regret. If anything, he needs a degree of commendation for highlighting these issues. The problem had been that many of them had not been highlighted thus far, and we have had to rely on this review. As the noble Lord indicated, the review states that nothing in it
“detracts from the fact that GDUK has designed and built what MOD maintains is thus far a vehicle which is not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification”.
The Minister replied that the key element of that was “thus far”, but he did not tell the House of Commons when he believed that these vehicles would be fit for purpose, and he did not say when they would meet the contracted specification. As the noble Lord indicated, the National Audit Office, in reviewing the procurement of MoD equipment, highlighted that the expenditure as of March 2021 had been £3.755 billion. How on earth can that amount, of a total of £5.5 billion, be committed when the review had indicated that these vehicles were not fit for purpose and would not meet the specification? If the Government’s position is that the vehicles will do so, when will that happen?
The NAO in paragraph 11 of its report highlighted part of the challenge as being the Government changing the specification. However, it said that that accounted for an 11 months’ delay to the programme. It high- lighted more than 13 programmes with 254 months of delays in MoD procurement—an astonishing amount. Paragraph 5.11 indicated in relation to Her Majesty’s Treasury that:
“The assessment for the Ajax armoured vehicle (October 2020), stated the programme remained a VFM”—
value-for-money—
“solution despite slippage of entry into service from July 2020 to June 2021, with a worst-case scenario of slippage to December 2022.”
How can the Treasury claim that there is a continued value-for-money solution while this review indicated that the vehicles were not fit for purpose and did not meet the contracted specification? Will all the vehicles now be in operation for our servicemen and women by the time of the worst-case scenario of December 2022 or are the Government changing that position?
I should declare that I represented a military barracks in my former constituency and was in northern Iraq last week. I know well the great pressure that our Armed Forces personnel have had to endure over many years. The welfare of those individuals should of course be a paramount priority. The Minister in the Commons did not indicate any detail about how support will be provided to those affected, so if the noble Baroness could provide more details, I should be grateful.
My final question relates to a Statement that the Minister made to this House in March this year. When asked about procurement in the MoD, she said in relation to a question from my noble friend Lord Addington about overruns and expenditure increases:
“The scenario that the noble Lord envisages is unlikely to arise because from now on procurement will proceed on a very different basis from what we have known in the past.”—[Official Report, 24/3/21; col. 845.]
However, we had to rely on this report and the Minister in the Commons stating in his concluding remarks yesterday that the report
“lays bare a deep malaise, which is cultural and results in systemic failures across our organisations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/21; col. 1082.]
How on earth can those two areas be reconciled? Can that department be relied upon, even by commissioning a senior legal figure, to learn these lessons? Would it not be better if that legal figure responded to a different and external organisation to ensure that deep malaise and cultural and systemic failures are not repeated in the future?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I, first, thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis, for their observations and comments.
I pay tribute to my honourable friend Jeremy Quin, the Minister in the other place, for his determination to lift the drain covers to find out what had been happening. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis, for acknowledging his efforts. I also thank David King, the MoD director of health and safety and environmental protection, for his report, which, although deeply troubling, is also robust, analytical, comprehensive and helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, quite understandably raised the catalogue of failings and asked how this could be. We are absolutely clear about what the recent report has produced. It confirmed that there were serious failings in how the MoD handled the health and safety concerns regarding Ajax vehicles. The review concluded that it was not the failure of a single individual but a complex combination of the Armed Forces’ relationship to harm and weaknesses in the MoD’s acquisition system. It also pointed to missed opportunities to act on safety and risk management across the programme.
Let me make it clear that all that is unacceptable. My honourable friend in the other place made that clear and I repeat that to your Lordships. That is why I say that this report, although deeply troubling, points to a way forward in a constructive and helpful manner. Your Lordships will be aware—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, alluded to this—that the recommendations in the report not only cover Ajax but reach out helpfully into the broader areas of procurement, particularly in relation to health and safety, and what changes might be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked how no one knew what was going on. It has emerged that warnings were not given sufficient attention; the report is explicit about that. Very troublingly, the Army did not believe that it was potentially causing harm to people as it was tacitly expected that soldiers could and should endure such conditions. That is utterly unacceptable, as the report makes clear. The recommendations are designed to ensure that a completely different and much more scrutinising approach to health and safety is adopted in future.
The noble Lord asked about the relevance of the follow-on review. I suppose that the review will look partially at the current health and safety report that has been published, but it is really determined to look at the whole Ajax programme to try to work out exactly what was going on beyond health and safety, and why communication was so poor and warnings were ignored. I make it clear that if gross misconduct is disclosed by that follow-on review then the appropriate administrative and disciplinary action will be taken.
The noble Lord asked specifically about the Defence Safety Authority report. That report was withdrawn for good reason: it did not follow the process, quality control and due diligence that you would expect of an inquiry such as a formal initiation establishing and analysing the facts, gathering and verifying evidence and, of course, deploying peer review. Following the retraction of that report because it was not considered sufficiently robust to be proceeded with, the Defence Land Safety Regulator, which works within the DSA, followed up on the concerns directly with Army HQ and DE&S. Again, while that sounds reassuring up to a point, I fully understand, as the report has disclosed, that the whole background and territory of communication —of the warnings being given, of how those were acknowledged and what response was given to them— becomes very opaque, and that is utterly unacceptable. The follow- on review will certainly look very closely at those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also asked whether we were sticking with Ajax. As he will understand, Ajax is a very important piece of equipment. It is a step change in how we deal with carrying personnel and with deploying cutting-edge technology to do that safely and to have as precise a knowledge of battleground as possible. We have made it clear that we are working with General Dynamics to try to get to the root of the problem with a view to finding solutions, but I make it clear again to this House that we will not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose. As my honourable friend said in the other place yesterday, it remains impossible to share with your Lordships 100% confidence that this programme will succeed, or, if it does, of the timing for achieving full operating capability.
In relation to overall capability, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we live in a world where we constantly consider, assess, adjust and, as necessary, plan what our response will be to threats. We will make sure that we are able to deal with whatever operational obligations fall upon us. Very particularly, I make it clear that this is not impacting on our operational capability nor on our obligations under NATO.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis raised the matter of trials. As he is aware, trials have taken place and we are currently assessing them. The physical trials at Millbrook have concluded. They have generated hundreds of gigabytes of data, and we expect to see conclusions from the analysis shortly. We will then verify the data, conduct assurance trials where required and draw conclusions on the next steps. Over and above that, separate from the trials, General Dynamics has conducted its own tests of proposed modifications to address vibration issues. Once analysis is complete, the MoD will verify the results through subsequent trials.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised the follow-on review. It is important that we build on such knowledge as has now been gathered together, and I think the health and safety report is a robust foundation on which to do that. The Secretary of State’s intention to bring in a leading legal figure is absolutely right, and they will look objectively, analytically and dispassionately at whatever the evidence may be and draw conclusions from that. I cannot pre-empt that, but we await progress on it.
When I looked at the report, it was deeply concerning —and I can tell your Lordships that it was deeply concerning to my ministerial colleagues—that personnel worked in a vehicle that had the potential to cause harm. I find that utterly unacceptable. The 310 people identified as working on Ajax trials and training have all been contacted for assessment. We shall continue to monitor those who have been assessed. We encourage those who have either declined assessment or been unable to attend an assessment to come forward, and any identified with continuing or emerging conditions will be supported appropriately.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I counted three references to values in the Minister’s speech. Former Secretary of State John Kerry said that
“values spoken without actions taken are merely slogans.”
We are told that this Queen’s Speech implements the Conservative Party manifesto. In the middle of page 53 of that manifesto, in very large lettering, is the heading “Promote our values”, under which it says that
“we will end preventable deaths of mothers, new-born babies and children… by 2030… We will stand up for the right of every girl in the world to have 12 years of quality education”,
and unequivocally
“will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on development”.
This is of course a legal requirement, not a discretionary one, but the equivocation since the decision in the last Session to unlawfully break this requirement, and the reality of what the cuts in this Session mean, is becoming stark. Just today, the International Development Committee in the House of Commons published a Statement saying:
“MPs condemn cuts to girls’ education”
in poor countries, and of hiding other reductions. MPs questioned why aid programmes aimed at boosting girls’ education in low-income countries appear to have been slashed when they were described by the Government as one of their top priorities. The chair of the committee said that it was ridiculous that the Government trumpet their commitment to girls’ education but then appear to cut the programmes in this area by 40%, which we know only because of the valiant questioning by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who is pursuing this issue.
What of the other values in the manifesto? Support for preventable deaths of mothers and newborn babies has been slashed, especially in Yemen. Quite astonishingly and shamefully, it took a civil servant to admit that no humanitarian impact assessment had been carried out before that aid support was slashed. On malaria, support was also slashed. One of the richest countries on earth, at the height of a global health and humanitarian crisis, the likes of which we have not seen in a generation, decides that its global response is to cut global support by a third, and to do this, breaks domestic law. I say again: values.
When the fiscal situation allows, is this a value or a slogan? These fiscal situations do not exist. If they did, the Government would have said what they were over the last six months to questions in this House and in the Commons. The Minister should have said that they will return to the legal commitment when the political situation allows, when the Government believe that these cuts are no longer popular, because clearly, the Government believe that, unique across the comprehensive spending review, the level of cuts in aid is popular. No other areas are being cut, so let us have a little honesty from the Government on what the fiscal situation allows.
It goes beyond this, of course, because the Minister referred to global leadership. As one of the seven richest nations on earth convenes the G7 in a few weeks’ time, will we repeat what we said on the two previous occasions when the UK convened the G8 and the G7? I remind the House of what the communique drafted by the British Government said at Gleneagles in 2005:
“G8 members from the European Union commit to a collective foreign aid target of 0.56% of GDP by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015.”
At Lough Erne in 2013, David Cameron told the other leaders that the UK had met its target and recommended that they do so also.
In 2021, we have breached our law; we are no longer meeting the commitment and we will have stopped a record for at least two decades of promoting the 0.7% to the other richest countries in the world. This is a retreat of global leadership, not a demonstration of it.
Let us not hear more of values when the actions speak against them. We are no longer in this area a leader in the world. The Government have abdicated that responsibility, and the tragic situation is that no other G7 country will meet that gap. Therefore, the consequence of the breaking of the law and the retreat of these values is that more mothers and children will die, we will have more people suffering from malaria, and global goals will not be met in a manner which we believe they should be.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in expressing condolences to those who tragically lost their lives and, as the son of an emergency worker—my dad was an ambulance driver all his life—I pay tribute to our emergency services, which have played such an exemplary role over recent weeks.
As Her Majesty said before the Queen’s Speech, the country is in many respects going through a very sombre period. However, there are some areas of common ground which I think this debate will highlight. My noble friends Lady Sheehan and Lord Chidgey, Lord Sharkey and Lord Bruce will highlight many areas where Liberals and Liberal Democrats have for many years taken a stance on international and development issues.
When much of the visualisation of the British constitution is based upon the ceremony of formal occasions, yesterday’s imagery spoke volumes. The last year there was a reduced Queen’s Speech was also the year I was born, the year a Prime Minister called an election on the question of who governed Britain. The 2017 version was a Prime Minister calling an election on the statement, “I govern Britain and want a large enough majority to ignore all opposition”. However, the people said no. Not only is this House a House of minorities, so is the other place. The 1970s also saw the last time a minority Administration introduced a Queen’s Speech—an Administration who would be largely dependent on votes from Northern Ireland Members. Perhaps when some of the press said that one of the party manifestos proposed to take us back to the 1970s, they had it round the wrong way.
It was welcome to hear from the Leader of the House yesterday that the Government will seek to govern with humility and to forge cross-party agreement where they can. Many issues raised in the Queen’s Speech and the Government’s agenda give us the best opportunity to have that wider consensus. When the Government make progressive moves on the international stage, they will receive support from these Benches. Humanitarian assistance, maintaining the legal requirement for the UK to meet its commitment to provide 0.7% of national income for international development, the delivery of the Paris Agreement and—more so—unswerving support for meeting the global goals for development are all issues on which we share common ground with the Government. We pledge to work with the Government on advancing them all.
Furthermore, the preparations for a successful Commonwealth summit next year, focusing on young people and with a greater visibility for human rights and LGBTI issues, will also be one of common cause. I pay tribute to the outgoing Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her work in seeking the global abolition of the death penalty and tackling sexual violence in conflict-affected areas, issues which we unreservedly supported and will continue to support. In that respect I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to his post as he takes on many of these important issues. We look forward to working with him. While he does not represent a Government who command a majority in this House, he commands respect across all parts of the House and will make a significant impact on the department.
On the global stage there is much common ground among us. For as long as this minority Government are in office, we will use our votes to support, strengthen and enforce a progressive international humanitarian, developmental and human rights-based agenda. However, in this context it is correct to highlight our concern that the UK has been less visible in 2017 than it should have been on major global challenges. I serve on the International Relations Committee in your Lordships’ House, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. Our report in May on the Middle East called for fresh thinking from the Government. It highlighted a lack of consistency in the UK’s approach, especially on Syria.
Over the last 12 months—I refer to my entry in the register of interests—I visited the region 15 times, with most visits to Iraq during the military offensive in Nineveh. The imminent military destruction of Daesh in Mosul now needs to be met with a whole-government response to support an environment where a successor to Daesh is not formed. This means the people there need to see local government in the area work for them and have services restored as soon as possible. I press upon the Minister the need for humanitarian assistance to be delivered as soon as security allows—I stress the urgency of this—to the people in the right side of Mosul who have been prisoners of Daesh. They have literally been prisoners, in the basements of their houses, and are starving to death as we debate this week. I know the work of the UK in that area intimately and I admire many of our staff on the ground. UK humanitarian assistance literally saves lives and I hope the Minister may respond positively. Upwards of 70,000 civilians are trapped in that part of Mosul this week.
I also welcome the announcement of a commission to look into extreme ideology. I have the privilege to serve with the British Council All-Party Parliamentary Group, alongside my noble friend Lady Suttie and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, in its work on tackling extreme ideology and developing the resilience of young people in the MENA region. I hope that when this work is published in the autumn it will form the basis of cross-party consensus on the need for further thinking on extreme ideology.
On Syria, the committee’s report highlighted confusion over the Government’s policy, outwith their commitment to humanitarian assistance. In summing up, can the Minister be clear on the Government’s position on Assad and whether he would be free to continue to play a role in the future leadership of Syria? Can the Minister also state how much of the £12 billion committed to the conference on support for Syria and the region, which took place in London, has actually been secured and how much has been delivered to the people who need it most in this ongoing humanitarian catastrophe?
In a much-publicised speech, the Foreign Secretary said that the UK was “back east of Suez”, and the Prime Minister said in Bahrain that the UK’s new Gulf strategy would deepen further our relationship with the Gulf states, but what is the UK’s current position on this tense situation? Does the UK agree with President Trump that Qatar funds terrorism, or does it have a distinct position? What is the UK’s position on the most recent developments in Iran? As we abstained from being involved in the outgoing French President’s initiative for discussing the Palestinian question, what active steps are the Government taking in challenging Israel on its recent moves in the Occupied Territories? The committee’s report said:
“The balance of power in the delivery of peace”—
the two-state solution—
“lies with Israel … The Government should give serious consideration to now recognising Palestine as a state, as the best way to show its determined attachment to the two-state solution”.
I would welcome the Minister responding to that in his summing up.
I mentioned our steadfast support for the UK meeting its international obligation on 0.7% for developmental aid. This was a welcome element in the Queen’s Speech, as it was in the Conservative manifesto, as it was in ours. In fact, it has been in ours since the 1970 general election, so while we may not meet the heights of the numbers of Conservative MPs, at least we have consistency on our side. I greatly admire the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and I think he is an excellent Minister in the department. I hope very much that the Government will not countenance the abolition of the Department for International Development and I hope that the Minister can state that unequivocally in his closing remarks. We have led the world in having a distinct department, setting in many respects the standard for the delivery of development aid and assistance. I hope very much that it will not be subsumed into the Foreign Office.
One area where there will be some equivocation is on what arrangements the UK will have on international trade. The Government sought a mandate for a hard Brexit, where leaving the customs union was a key part of that approach. They did not receive it. If humility was to be on display, it would be the recognition that maintaining membership of the customs union should be in the best interests of British business. Many warned that it was simply unfeasible, as outlined in the Prime Minister’s letter triggering Article 50, to negotiate both the terms on leaving and the new trading arrangements simultaneously. This has been the first quite significant defeat for the Government with regard to their negotiating stance.
It also seems that the “no deal is better than a bad deal” rhetoric has been ditched, gladly. When during the campaign Ministers were asked to outline what a bad deal sounded like, they defined what “no deal” actually was. The rhetoric has now moved away from “no deal is better than a bad deal” but now what has seemed to creep in is “no deal is better than a punishment deal”. It is an odd week indeed, when negotiations have started, when the Brexit Secretary’s first move is a retreat on the Government’s previous position on the process of the negotiations, but the prospect of a punishment agreement being forced upon us is now real. It is just not the right approach to commencing these important negotiations with our European friends.
The speeches this week by the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England have stated in stark terms the economic reality we are now facing and the likelihood of people being poorer and the economy being impacted. Of course the people did not vote for themselves to be poorer; nor did they want the economy to be less developed. But the real admission from the Government of the challenges ahead is a welcome move. The Chancellor has now said that it is in the interests of Britain that we have a significant transitional arrangement for trade. This was not really mentioned in the Minister’s speech. The Chancellor said this morning that he could not rule out that this would be for a number of years. Can the Minister confirm that this is the Government’s position and whether the European Court of Justice jurisdiction will apply over this period? The Chancellor said that once this was agreed, business could breathe a huge sigh of relief and investment could start again: is this an indication that there is significant business concern?
Overall, there is much that we will agree with—on humanitarian, diplomatic and aid support—and we will provide those elements to the Government. But when it comes to issues of Brexit and our separation from the European Union, we will be forensic in our scrutiny and we will hold this Government to account.
UK Exports
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Mobarik
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I can reassure her that the Prime Minister has been clear: we seek a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union, covering tariff and barrier-free trade in goods and services, offering the fullest possible access to the single market for British companies. In relation to particular areas and sectors, since 2015 the Department for International Trade has carried out extra northern export missions and since 2016, Midlands missions. We have introduced teams to lead investments in the north and the Midlands. We are looking at a whole array of different measures to improve our exporting.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Both the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the noble Lord, Lord Price, have told committees of this House that the Government have been conducting an exercise to consider what the costs and burdens on British business would be in leaving the customs union. Now that the Government have their policy to leave the customs union, presumably that assessment has been concluded. Will they publish it so that Parliament is able to consider this before it is asked to vote to trigger Article 50?
Queen’s Speech
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord’s contribution on the European Union, first because I agree with all of it, and secondly because it means that I do not have to address the subject.
Her Majesty’s comment that:
“Britain’s commitment on international development spending will also be honoured, helping to deliver global stability, support the Sustainable Development Goals and prevent new threats to national security”,—[Official Report, 18/5/16; col. 3.]
was a very welcome element of the Speech, especially in the light of the organised campaign in some quarters against such a commitment. The commitment has been long-standing and the more recent honouring of it was a result of cross-party consensus. That consensus also allowed for the international development assistance targets legislation to be passed by Parliament last year.
This year, the global goals for sustainable development come into effect. The core ambitions—end poverty, combat climate change and fight injustice and inequality—are starting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, suggested, by empowering girls and women. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and my noble friend Lady Northover in arguing for a greater role for women in conflict resolution. Two weeks ago it was my privilege to meet the Syrian Women’s Advisory Board and to talk to them about peaceful constitutional change in the context of the United Kingdom. It was slightly depressing that foremost in their minds were our two referenda about separation, rather than unity. Nevertheless, their perspective can add to the process.
Returning to international aid, it is worth reflecting that there were not too many links between the new DfID strategy and the global goals. Parliament has still to learn of the UK Government’s structure internally to co-ordinate delivery of the global goals and to align DfID’s work with them. Perhaps a named tsar or a senior champion in Government, perhaps in the Cabinet Office, would be appropriate to show how we are driving forward in government our role in delivering the goals. I hope that the noble Earl will say more when he responds to the debate so that we can have a clearer picture of how government structures will deliver our commitments to the global goals.
All the indications suggest that we will be unlikely to meet the goals without concerted and accelerated effort in their early years. Therefore, British leadership in 2016 is essential. Our existing leadership, by honouring our 0.7% commitment and subsequently enshrining it in law, has already driven an improved financial climate. With some exceptions—developed countries such as France, Portugal, Australia and Switzerland reduced support—the trend over the last year has been an increased commitment. The Prime Ministers of Canada and Italy—it is perhaps purely coincidence that they are members of sister parties to the Liberal Democrats—cited our approach of increasing ODA assistance when making the case in their own countries. The ODA/GNI ratio increased in 15 member states of the EU, with nine declining and four remaining stationary. The trend is positive. I have no doubt that a better prospect was realised because of UK leadership at the Financing for Development conference in Addis, and through our work in the EU with our DfID Ministers banging the table. It means that for the least developed countries and fragile states, an increase of 6% in real terms has been registered.
However, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels, and those most in need in the world cannot afford for us to do so. There is further scope for British leadership over the coming year on tax transparency, insurance for development and innovation for investment. On tax transparency, the report of the High Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa estimated that over the last 50 years Africa has lost in excess of $1 trillion—more than all of the development assistance that that continent received over the same period. The UK can do much more—I hope it will—on tax transparency and supporting those countries we take for granted, so that those who owe tax in those countries pay it there.
On innovative financial modelling, there is a real case for the British insurance sector, whose leadership is undoubted, supporting much more innovative development assistance. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire indicated that the migration and climate change trends are storms in the face of global development, rather than winds at the back of them. This is an area where British leadership can aid development much more. On the role of our development banks, the UK is now a shareholder in the Asian Development Bank, with £100 million of ODA as our equity. That can be used much more creatively. If we follow what Standard & Poor’s said in an April report, a potential $1 trillion more could be levered through our development banks.
Finally, we have seen with Malaria, TB and AIDS that British aid and leadership can work to deliver much more. In his closing remarks, I hope the noble Earl will address the appeal for increased assistance and lifting the cap on replenishing the global fund. We have seen beyond any doubt that British leadership and assistance can deliver huge success in those areas. In the Second Reading debate on the international assistance Bill, I hoped there would be consensus that all children around the world should take for granted what we have here at home. Our leadership in the world can help deliver that. I hope that our focus after the EU referendum will be on these areas so that, through British leadership, we can gain greater aid for the world’s most needy.
Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
Let me address that. It has been said by some noble Lords, and the noble Baroness’s question implies it, that the brunt of these savings will be borne by those on tax credits who are relatively worse off. That is not the case. The 10% of tax credit claimants on the highest incomes—incidentally, those on £42,000 on average—contribute nearly four times as much to the savings that we are proposing as the poorest claimants. That is an important point to factor in. The problem with talking about those at the lower end of the scale is that everyone’s circumstances are different. Some people have children and some do not. Some have a disability and some do not. Some work shorter hours, some work longer hours. It is very difficult to particularise.
I can say that the cut in public spending that we propose through this regulation is one that will take us back not to some far-distant point in the past, but to the levels of spending seen in 2007-08 before the financial crash. I am talking of course about the spending position in its totality. One cannot particularise, as I said, to an individual case because people’s circumstances will be different.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
The Deputy Leader is giving a defence of the Government’s position that does not give much of an indication that the Government are prepared to think again, as some Members on the opposite Benches have indicated. Before he came to the House today, I wonder if he had spoken to the leader of his party in Scotland, Ruth Davidson. She said over the weekend:
“If we’re not the party of getting people into work and making it easier for them to get up the tree, then what are we there for? It’s not acceptable. The aim is sound, but we can’t have people suffering on the way. The idea that there’s a cliff edge in April before the uptake in wages comes in is a real practical human problem and the Government needs to look again at it”.
Will they?
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Maybe I was not entirely clear. That was the leader of the noble Earl’s party in Scotland.