Ukraine

Debate between Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right, and it is at times like these that any Prime Minister would be tested to ensure that we get the best for our country. The first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, and we must do what it takes to achieve that. The Prime Minister, reaching out across the Atlantic but also across Europe, has taken a leadership role with other European leaders, which has been really important for this country as well. The noble Lord will know that defence spending is not something that you can turn on like a tap, and in getting to 2.5% there is a lot of work to be done, but we will be led by the strategic defence review, which will indicate where we are leading. But the Government will always take a change in circumstances into account.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I join others in commending the Government for their Statement and their actions in recent days. It is perhaps symbolic that Belfast will be at the heart of the UK support in the aid that we are providing to Ukraine, because it symbolically shows that support from Ukraine is not just from all quarters of this House but from all parts of our nation. I agree with the Government that we want to see peace, and a just and lasting peace, but the Government are also right in saying that the best opportunity for that is through strength and deterrence. In the light of the pause in support from the United States, which many of us fear will be a long-term cessation rather than simply a pause, what assurances can the noble Baroness give the House that this country and other participants in the coalition of the willing will be able to ensure that there is sufficient aid going to Ukraine and, vitally, that it flows quickly enough to ensure that a gap is not created that Putin’s regime can try to exploit, leaving Ukraine vulnerable?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right—and I do not want to say anything more about the pause at this stage, because we simply do not know enough, and we do not know the impact of President Zelensky’s response. But we are well aware of those challenges. I mentioned the strategic defence review, and a national armaments director will be in place soon to look at those issues as well. But the security of Ukraine is not just about aid to Ukraine; it is also about the security and protection of this country. We need to be aware of that at all times. If we ignore the security of Ukraine issues, we have seen on our own shores before—as we saw in Salisbury, for example—that Russian aggression is an issue for this country, not just for other countries overseas. So we will work with Ukraine.

The point was made, which I reiterate, that the Prime Minister has brought together the coalition of the willing across Europe. One thing that has been a problem in the past is that we tend to move as slowly as the most reluctant member, and the Prime Minister is saying that we have to lead from the front and ask, “Where are the willing?” So we have the coalition of the willing so that we do not delay in any way at all and do as much as we can as quickly as we can.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Lord Weir of Ballyholme and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a deeply respectful debate. A number of issues have come to light, and it would be helpful if the Minister could respond to them. Some of the issues are quite complex. I am grateful particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for the experience that she brings to this.

I turn first to Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. This definition is something that the victims’ commissioner has raised with a number of Members of your Lordships’ House. The phrase “serious physical or mental harm” is really key here. Many of us have met victims who have suffered harm that is not always immediately evident. We have to look at this again, because there is no power for the definitions to be amended. Given the Government’s fondness for Sis—not that I am recommending this route—there possibly needs to be some discretion for the commission. We discussed this briefly with the Minister, and he is rightly wary of having a list, which can never be exhaustive, but this has to be revisited and looked at again. Some discretion might possibly be the way forward.

On the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hain, I do not know whether the Minister is considering opening this up. Operation Denton is due to report in spring next year—I know that is an elastic term in government announcements. We will come to our amendment on this later in proceedings, but to have this investigation running for so long and for it then to be ended by the Bill would clearly be the wrong thing to do. It seems a sensible process, and one that started in 2020, and the point made by my noble friend Lord Hain is well made. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that so I can understand the timing.

There is no commencement time in this Bill. It would be helpful to know when, if the Bill were to conclude all its stages and become law, the Minister envisages that it would start. That is important in this context.

My noble friend Lord Browne talked about transparency. That is clear-cut: if we are to have confidence in a process, it needs to have transparency. I think it might be a mistake in the Government’s drafting that someone could be compelled to attend but not compelled to give evidence. That seems to be a bit of a loophole, and I hope that the Minister can come back with something positive on that. did

I turn to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I can see the point that she is trying to address, which was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Weir—that in repeated inquiries it is the people who shout the loudest who have more access to the various mechanisms in place—but it seems to me to be a very absolute point. If compelling new evidence was brought forward, in any circumstances and by anybody, surely there should be the option for the commission to consider that compelling new evidence.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

I entirely agree with the point that the noble Baroness has made. However, to be fair to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is that not why the amendment refers to “take into account”? That then would not preclude it being taken into account and a different approach being taken.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It may be. I do not have the amendment in front of me—I will look at it again later—but there seemed to be an absoluteness. I understand the principle, but I want to make sure that the detail and specifics of the amendment do what they intend to and not cut off options for—