Climate Change: Impact on Developing Nations

Viscount Chandos Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

My Lords, as the last Back-Bench speaker, I will try to be brief and avoid repetition as far as possible, let alone hesitation or deviation. I thank and pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, not just for her compelling introduction but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, for her long record in this field in and out of government. I will focus my remarks exclusively on the role that sustainable media plays in international development generally, particularly in relation to climate change. I declare my interest, as included in the register, as chair of the not-for-profit Thomson Foundation, which, along with its sister organisation in Berlin, promotes sustainable media development and trains journalists in countries with either low incomes or low press freedom, or both.

Six weeks ago, I attended the annual awards ceremony of the Foreign Press Association, addressed this year by Her Majesty the Queen. One of the award winners was the documentary film “Under Poisoned Skies”, directed by Jess Kelly for BBC News Arabic, which revealed the devastating effect on the health of local people caused by gas flaring in the giant oil fields of southern Iraq, over and above the deeply damaging level of emissions. So far, this film has had neither the ratings nor the political impact of “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, but it demonstrates vividly the role of the media in raising awareness and prospectively spurring action against climate change and related threats to the health of people in developing nations.

“Under Poisoned Skies” was financed by the BBC World Service, whose funding since 2014 has been predominantly from the licence fee rather than the then FCO, following the ill-judged settlement between the BBC and the Government, which paralleled the later raids on the international development budget described by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and other speakers.

Policies to combat climate change cannot be imposed on developing nations: they must emerge with the wholehearted consent of those countries’ people, based on accurate and truthful information. That is why the Thomson Foundation strongly believes that local journalists in developing nations have a vital role to play in changing the narrative around the world’s environmental breakdown and climate change. The foundation, funded inter alia by the FCDO, the British Council and, through Berlin, the EU, provides online e-learning courses and webinars and holds competitions for environmental journalists and workshops in countries including Lesotho and Ethiopia.

Media developments straddled the FCO and DfID when they were separate departments, so if there were any positive arguments for their merger, as opposed to a continuation of the cross-departmental co-operation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, this might have been one. It is therefore disappointing that November’s White Paper, welcome as it is in other ways, made no attempt to capitalise on the merged department by including any reference to the vital role that strong and free media plays in achieving international development objectives. Will the Minister urge his colleagues in the FCDO to incorporate the promotion of sustainable media as a priority in the international development policy that I hope will emerge from the White Paper?

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Viscount Chandos Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

My Lords, I came here this afternoon not intending to speak, but listening to other noble Lords I felt inspired to speak—although, I think in breach of a convention of the House, the words will not be predominantly mine. They are the words of my maternal grandfather, Sir Alan Lascelles—Tommy Lascelles—Her Majesty the Queen’s first private secretary and her father’s private secretary for nearly 10 years. When my aunt died last year, we found in her papers a very short memoir of his, written in 1960, with his reminiscences of knowing Her Majesty as she grew up and of working for her. I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I quote two quite short sections, one because of its resonance for today or, particularly, tomorrow:

“At the time of the King’s death, in February 1952, she was in Kenya. She returned as Queen, and from the moment she stepped out of the aeroplane which brought her home she assumed the responsibilities of her new position with a calm dignity that filled us all with admiration. In all my life I can recall no more moving incident than her entry into the crowded Throne Room at St James’s Palace for the Accession Privy Council. There were, I suppose, over 100 of us Privy Counsellors assembled; there was not one who was not stirred to the point of tears by the sight of that slim figure in black moving quietly to the throne, and by the sound of her unfaltering musical voice as she read the message to us.”


Although His Majesty King Charles may have had rather longer to prepare to assume his role, I suspect he may be feeling as nervous this evening as Her Majesty did all those years ago.

I shall finish with the summary that Tommy Lascelles wrote. There is a wonderful passage describing her relationship with Sir Winston Churchill, and then he goes on:

“Her relations with other ministers were always easy. I never saw any sign of her having found an audience, ministerial or otherwise, a trouble. To her secretarial staff, she was an ideal chief. Her father habitually suffered from violent storms of temper—a trait that was probably hereditary. I never knew the Queen to be even mildly cross or—outwardly at any rate—ruffled by any contretemps or piece of bad news. Her serenity was constant, her wisdom faultless. On the whole, I consider her the most remarkable woman I have ever met.”

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to pay my deepest respects to the extraordinary life of Her Majesty the Queen. Her unstinting support and knowledge of the sporting landscape was formidable. She always asked gently challenging questions about personal performances and the team—none of the bland “Are you happy you won?” or “Are you sad you lost?” She made everyone feel special and cherished, regardless of their performance.

In my career as an athlete, I competed at three Commonwealth Games. The Queen’s attendance at the opening or closing ceremonies, or at the events, provided the magic fairy dust for the event. More than the athlete parade on home soil, her speech was the moment when the Games began. She was the guiding light we wanted to live up to.

In 2002 at the Games in Manchester, who can forget Kirsty Howard and David Beckham handing over the baton to the Queen? The Queen’s baton relay this year was an amazing event; thousands of people took part, and many thousands more came to watch, sometimes waiting for hours on a little part of a road just to see it go past. Listening to some of the stories of how the individuals came to be nominated was moving and emotional, but they all shared one thing: their pride in being part of something special, and feeling a connection to her.

Who can forget the wonderful way she arrived at the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Games? Before Paddington, there was James Bond. It was such a closely guarded secret; all I knew was that we had to wait and see. I was in the stadium that night. I remember sitting in a crowd of 60,000 people as that moment of realisation dawned: “That looks a bit like Buckingham Palace—it is Buckingham Palace. That looks a bit like the Queen—it is the Queen”. At the moment she turned and said, “Mr Bond”, the atmosphere was electric. No one was prepared for the helicopter or the parachute jump, but it showed an innate sense of humour.

A few years before that was the bidding process for the 2012 Games. I believe the Queen had an enormous impact on that. As noble Lords might imagine, there are many rules for the bidding process for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The evaluation commission is allowed to attend only one reception. Four other cities bidding for the Games gave huge, grand receptions with hundreds of people. But it was always London’s intention to do something different. The Queen hosted an intimate dinner at Buckingham Palace, which I was privileged to attend. It allowed the evaluation commission some time away from the public eye, and I and others who were part of the bid believed it played a significant role in the eventual victory.

Her commitment to sport was not just about attending events. After major Games—Olympics and Paralympics —receptions were held at Buckingham Palace to which all team members were invited, and other members of the Royal Family were there. After one such reception after the Sydney Games, I was introduced to Her Majesty. Initially, my mother was delighted because the day after a picture was published in a national newspaper of me and the Queen together—until my mother looked at my shoes. Well, my purple boots. She deemed them entirely unsuitable and robustly told me how unsuitable they were. At the end of my telling off, she said “What will the Queen think of me because you wore those shoes?” There are times when there is simply nothing to say except “Sorry”—except I said, “I don’t think the Queen is thinking of you”. My dad shook his head, walked away from me and said, “You’re on your own with that one”.

Actually, I wanted not to disappoint either my mother or the Queen in equal measure. We learn many lessons in life; the lesson I learned from that is that sometimes you just need to learn when to be quiet. A couple of days later, my mother decided to forgive me and very proudly showed anyone who wanted to see—and many who did not—the picture of me, but with the offending boots folded out of it and a hand covering them. I am not sure that anyone else noticed I was wearing those boots.

The Queen’s presence at sporting events, or indeed any event, simply raised people’s spirits. The Commonwealth Games in Birmingham earlier this year was an amazing event. Many athletes wished she could have been there; sadly, it was not to be, but everyone understood why. However, the then Prince of Wales did a sterling job, balancing ceremony with compassion. He set exactly the right tone for the successful Games they became, which the sporting community will be ever grateful for in difficult times. It meant so much to everyone. Long live the King.

Universal Credit (EAC Report)

Viscount Chandos Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Grand Committee

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who, as he has just demonstrated, is an excellent successor to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee.

We are finally able to debate our report on universal credit, in the bijou location of the Moses Room, 20 months after its publication. Other noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, have remarked on this unacceptable delay—if not necessarily the relegation of the debate to the Moses Room. For me, there is perhaps one silver lining to this cloud, which is that I find myself the only speaker this afternoon, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who was an EAC member when the inquiry was held, so I feel that I can be permitted to say a few words about the chairman as well as echoing his tribute to the work of the staff, special advisers and witnesses who guided us through this exceptionally complex and difficult subject.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, led the committee from the front and none of us could match the burning sense of injustice about the Government’s policies that he articulated in the meetings and subsequently, as his introduction today has demonstrated. It is a little-known secret that to commemorate Sir Bernard Ingham’s description of the late Lord Biffen as a “semi-detached” member of the Thatcher Cabinet, the Conservative Whips in your Lordships’ House vote annually on the Bernard Ingham award for semi-detachment. I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has won this so many times in recent years that he may well own the trophy in perpetuity, although I think that there are promising signs that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, may give him a run for his money.

It would not be right to thank the many witnesses who gave oral or written evidence without noting the particular contribution of Sir John Hills, professor of social policy at the LSE, who very sadly died not long after the report’s publication.

I will concentrate my remarks on a couple of big-picture questions; other speakers have already raised highly effectively many of the specific recommendations in the report and the universally disappointing response from the Government. First, is it right to see universal credit as the basis of in and out of work benefits for the foreseeable future? The report’s summary states that

“we received overwhelming evidence that Universal Credit should not be replaced with a new system, not least because of the severe disruption that this would cause for millions of people.”

Although I continue to feel a nagging worry that this could be an example of sunk cost fallacy after 10 years of tortuous migration from legacy benefits—still not completed—I at least tentatively support this conclusion. My suspicion is that the digital platform on which universal credit is based should and will survive but that, by the time the reforms advocated in the committee’s report and others from different sources have been implemented by possibly a more enlightened Government than this one, the system will be largely unrecognisable from that which currently prevails.

One of the recommendations of the report was that childcare should be taken out of universal credit. Picking up on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, we had a vigorous debate about whether housing benefit really fitted within universal credit. In the end, we concluded that it should not be moved, but I think that a universal credit system would still work effectively with four or five of the legacy benefits incorporated, not the current six.

I turn now to my second main question. Can any system give the support that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, so eloquently argued that we, as a civilised society, should give to those in financial distress? I vehemently support the noble Lord’s condemnation of the Government’s decision not indefinitely to continue the £20 per week uplift that was introduced for the period of lockdown when many households’ outgoings may have decreased.

However, as every psychotherapist might say, “Maybe we should move on”. I will move on and ask the fundamental question: what amount is necessary and fair for any household to live on? Professor Jonathan Portes, who was the chief economist at the Department for Work and Pensions from 2002 to 2008, wrote last year:

“The overwhelming case against cutting Universal Credit: not the pandemic, but the extraordinary cuts to unemployment-related benefits over the last four decades.”


In the period from 1979 to 2019, average out-of-work benefits fell from 25% of average earnings—hardly a licence for luxurious living—to less than 15%. Even if the temporary uplift in universal credit in 2020-21 and the suppression of some earnings may have reversed that trend in those years, the relative normalisation of the economy now will inevitably see new lows tested.

The furlough measures introduced by the Government in response to the pandemic and related working restrictions were rightly and generally praised. These provided for furloughed employees to receive 80% of their previous earnings, capped at £30,000 per annum. Can the Minister explain to your Lordships why she thinks that, if 80% was the right level of income support under the furlough scheme, 15% of average earnings is a justifiable level of support for unemployed people in normal economic conditions? I am not saying that 80% is a sustainable level in the long term, but surely 15% is far too low.

It may or may not be a coincidence that today’s debate coincides with the Chancellor’s Spring Statement, with what I can only regard as a stunt of an income tax cut in two years’ time—and I admit that perhaps the inventor of stunts of that sort was my right honourable friend Gordon Brown. The general tone of today’s Spring Statement seemed to be, “I’m all right, Jack”. Unless and until the Government reform the system of universal credit in the way in which the committee has advocated, we will face a period, to adapt JK Galbraith, of

“private affluence and public poverty”.

Brexit: UK-EU Relationship

Viscount Chandos Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

My Lords:

“The UK will intensify its relationship with its friends across the channel at an inter-governmental level”.

Those are not the words of a diehard supporter of remain but of the newly appointed Foreign Secretary on 14 July this year, fresh from his leadership of the campaign that secured the referendum vote to leave. What, then, should that relationship be? Five months after the referendum, as other noble Lords have said, the Government have offered no clue as to the nature of the relationship that they would like to achieve. There has been much talk of not compromising our negotiating position by showing our hand but, in reality, the truth is that the Conservative Government were totally unprepared for the outcome of the referendum.

In January 2013, the Conservative Government committed to a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU by the end of 2017 in the event that they won the next general election, and to its inclusion as a condition for any new coalition. They committed to honouring the outcome of the referendum and the then Prime Minister committed to staying on to implement whichever decision the referendum mandated. The Government may ultimately have campaigned for a remain vote, but it was still their responsibility to prepare for either eventuality. Three and a half years after committing to the referendum—nearly twice the length of the negotiating period provided for under Article 50—the Conservative Government had made no preparations of any sort. This casual and negligent arrogance made the Royal Bank of Scotland look by comparison well prepared for the great financial crisis. This is the vacuum that needs to be filled and in the circumstances the Government should welcome and constructively engage with the ideas of others both within Parliament and elsewhere.

I should like to use my remaining time to draw your Lordships’ attention to one such idea—a proposal for a continental partnership put forward by Sir Paul Tucker, the former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, and his co-authors, under the sponsorship of the economics think tank Bruegel, and described by the economics commentator Hamish McRae as,

“the most convincing sketch yet of how this relationship might look”.

I believe that the importance of this proposal is not so much its specific suggestions—although they are pretty compelling, in my view—as the signal given by the identity of Sir Paul’s co-authors. They include, writing in a personal capacity, Jean Pisani-Ferry, the Commissioner-General for Policy Planning for the French Prime Minister, and Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Bundestag. The proposal envisages membership of the single market for,

“an outer circle of countries involved in a structured intergovernmental partnership”—

words that echo those of the Foreign Secretary, and an—

“intergovernmental form of collaboration, with no legal right to free movement for workers but a regime of some controlled labour mobility and a contribution to the EU budget”.

Time does not allow for a more detailed summary, and as Hamish McRae suggested, we should perhaps regard it as a good sketch rather than a finished picture. I do not pretend either that the personal views of the authors can be interpreted as a fast track to a done deal, given that we are facing, as the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU has said in his characteristically understated way, the “most complex negotiations” of all time. However, I am more optimistic than my noble friend Lord Livermore that behind the hard-line initial positions taken by EU leaders, mirroring and indeed responding to our own leaders’ rhetoric, there is among the key thinkers at the heart of the EU an understanding of the concerns lying behind the referendum vote and a desire to find a constructive solution of potentially wider relevance. I have no doubt that the Government have this proposal in their in-tray, not least as a founding member and funder of Bruegel.

My honourable friend Keir Starmer has asked the Government 170 excellent Questions but I will ask only two. Do the Government regard the model set out in the proposal as a good sketch from which a final picture could be derived, and will they engage, perhaps through Sir Paul Tucker, in discussions about it?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I have to point out that we have a fairly serious overrun. Perhaps I may respectfully remind noble Lords that when the Clock shows “four” they are over time. It does not matter how anxiously noble Lords continue to glance at the Clock, that will not minimise the time by which they run over, it will simply defer and exceed the run-over. I ask for your Lordships’ co-operation so that the moment the Clock shows “four”, they conclude their remarks.