Ecocide

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, the emotive term “ecocide” conjures up horrific images of serious and deliberate crimes against humanity, such as genocide. I understand that an application was made to the United Nations International Law Commission in 2010 that a crime of ecocide be added to the Rome statute, defined as

“the extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been … severely diminished.”

Does my noble friend not agree that it is hard to consider ecocide as so defined as a crime at all, let alone one equivalent to such serious war crimes, if it does not even need a person or a—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid we need to move on. We will hear from the Minister.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My noble friend is right that ecocide was removed from the drafting process of the Rome statute and that that was significant in gaining agreement on the crimes eventually included in the ICC’s jurisdiction. A norm of customary international law is that no one may be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual criminal responsibility. This is reflected in the crimes listed under the Rome statute. Any future agreed definition of the crime of ecocide would need to reflect a similar set of norms.

Allowances

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That:

(1) The Resolution of the House of 22 July 2020 (House of Lords Allowance), the Resolution of the House of 6 May 2020 (House of Lords Allowance) (as amended), and the Resolution of the House of 20 July 2010 (House of Lords Allowance) (as amended) cease to have effect in respect of attendances after 5 September 2021.

(2) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, should be entitled to an allowance in respect of each day of attendance on or after 6 September 2021 as provided for below.

(3) “Attendance” means attendance—

(a) at a sitting of this House,

(b) at a meeting or virtual meeting of a Committee of this House, or

(c) on such other Parliamentary business as may be determined by the House of Lords Commission.

(4) The amount of the allowance payable to a Member should be–—

(a) £323, or

(b) £162, if paragraph 5 applies.

(5) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the attendance relates to parliamentary business conducted away from Westminster, or

(b) the attendance is at Westminster but the Member elects that this paragraph should apply.

(6) In respect of attendance under paragraph 3(a), Members who have been deemed eligible by the process established by the Commission to participate virtually in sittings of the House are entitled to claim an allowance when they do so.

(7) In respect of attendance under paragraph 3(b), only Members of that Committee, or Members authorised to attend a meeting of such a Committee by the Chair, are entitled to claim an allowance.

(8) The provisions of this Resolution apply in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.

(9) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2022, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April—

(a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and

(b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be—

(i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year, or

(ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year.

(10) In paragraph 9(a) “IPSA determination” means a determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.

(11) Any fraction of a pound in an amount obtained under paragraph 9(b)(i) should be rounded up to the nearest pound if the fraction is 50p or more, but otherwise should be disregarded.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That with effect from 6 September the previous motions agreed on 4 June 2020, 28 July 2020, 12 October 2020 and 9 February relating to the sittings of the hybrid House and the hybrid Grand Committee shall cease to have effect; and that until further notice:

(1) the provisions of Standing Orders 52 (Divisions), 53 (Votes counted in the House) and 54 (Voting in wrong lobby) shall not apply; and

(2) members may only cast their votes through the House of Lords remote voting system, in accordance with guidance set out in appendix 2 of the First Report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee (HL Paper 41).

Motion agreed.

Procedure and Privileges

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That the Report from the Select Committee Procedural adaptations arising from the hybrid House; Interim option of voting using PeerHub; Ongoing virtual participation by disabled members (1st Report, HL Paper 41) be agreed to.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to the Motions standing in my name and in the name of the Senior Deputy Speaker. As the Lord Speaker said, this Motion is being debated alongside a Business of the House Motion and a Motion on allowances, both of which are in my name, which is why I am opening this debate.

Before I go any further, I once again put on record my thanks to the staff of the House for all of the work they have done to support us over the past 16 months. I also thank the Chief Whip, the Front Bench and all the fantastic people who work in our offices, specifically some unsung heroes—many of your Lordships will have relied on them for support during our hybrid proceedings but you may not fully appreciate the role they have played. Jane Burfoot, Leann Twinley, Matt Taylor, Hannah-Louise Gadsby, Charlotte Johnson and James Anoom have all patiently assisted noble Lords from across the House with the myriad speakers’ and participants’ lists and so much more. On behalf of us all, thank you.

The virtual then hybrid systems we have been using for the last 16 months have served their purpose: they allowed the House to continue to meet through three national lockdowns and to carry on scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. Despite the unprecedented and challenging circumstances, in the last Session 55 Bills were passed and, when added together, 341 Statements, UQ repeats and PNQs were debated.

Although I agree with the Constitution Committee, which concluded that our hybrid scrutiny has been “less effective”, no one can say we did not do our job as best we could in the most difficult of circumstances. Throughout the pandemic we have worked hard to ensure that our practices and procedures have remained compatible with the public health situation, and that will not change.

All the proposals before noble Lords today have been informed by the debate that took place on Thursday 20 May, by representations from across the House and by an informal consultation exercise carried out last week via PeerHub. They give effect to a series of measures agreed and proposed by the commission and the Procedure and Privileges Committee in respect of the working practices of the House from 6 September onwards, after the remaining public health restrictions have been lifted and ensuring time for the House authorities to implement them.

Subject to the agreement of the House today, the hybrid system and remote voting will come to an end at this point, after the Summer Recess. There will be no more speakers’ lists for the amending stages of Bills; Grand Committee will return to the Moses Room; and interventions, which noble Lords across the House have said they have missed most, will once again be possible. Statements, Urgent Questions and Private Notice Questions will go back to being taken at the earliest convenience and without speakers’ lists.

We all know the limitations of the hybrid system, and I am pleased that the package before the House will return the vast majority of our working practices to what they were before the pandemic. However, we have learned from the experience of the last year and are therefore recommending that the House keeps some of the changes that we believe have made our processes more effective and efficient.

If these Motions were agreed to, Private Notice Questions, which were extended at the beginning of the pandemic, would continue to last for up to 15 minutes, rather than go back to 10. Speakers’ lists, for the business that will still need them, would continue to close two working days before a debate or Question takes place, rather than the night before. The legislation tabling deadline would stay at 4 pm and the Table Office tabling deadline at 5 pm—both one hour earlier than their pre-pandemic cut-offs. A ballot would continue to be held for Questions for Short Debate to be taken in Grand Committee once every five weeks. This would be in addition to the return of balloted general debates, balloted topical QSDs and dinner break business. The Companion would be updated to discourage the late degrouping of amendments before the amending stages of Bills. The requirement to convene a Reasons Committee would cease; a standard Reason would be given instead when the Lords disagree with a Commons proposition without proposing an alternative.

There would also be changes to the arrangements for Oral Questions. The extension of Question Time to 40 minutes and Secretary of State’s Questions to 30 minutes would be retained, so each Question would have up to 10 minutes rather than revert to the pre-pandemic seven and a half. Oral Questions would continue to be allocated by ballot, removing the need for noble Lords to queue up for hours on end outside the Table Office in the hope of securing one. The wording of Oral Questions would not be able to be changed with less than 48 hours’ notice, and a speakers’ list for Oral Questions would continue to be used. Because we were all aware that opinion across the House was—and remains—divided on this issue, the Procedure Committee decided to ask the opinion of your Lordships. It was subject to a vote via PeerHub in which the whole House was invited to take part. Of the 551 Members who responded, 59% voted in favour of keeping speakers’ lists for Oral Questions, hence the proposal before your Lordships today.

I can see from the Order Paper that this decision is not universally popular but, as with all measures, the Procedure and Privileges Committee will keep it under review from September. Of course, if the House agrees to these Motions, Members will be able to contrast having lists for Oral Questions with having Statements, UQs and PNQs without them once we return.

One of the great achievements of the past 16 months was the work done to rapidly adapt the House of Commons system, MemberHub, for use in this House as PeerHub. It proved a secure and mostly reliable way for noble Lords to vote remotely. We would not have been able to continue scrutinising legislation without it and, once again, I put on record my thanks to the digital team that worked so hard to both build PeerHub and support our use of it. However, the commission has decided—again, subject to your Lordships’ agreement —that remote voting should cease from September and that the relationship between attendance at Parliament and casting a vote in a Division should be restored. Voting is at the core of what being a legislator is, and we believe that it should be done in the House. In the longer term, voting will take place using pass readers, and we will bring proposals on this to the House in the autumn. However, while that system is being developed, PeerHub will continue to be used as an interim measure. From September, noble Lords will be asked before they vote whether they are in a place of work on the estate and will not be able to vote if they answer “no”.

Finally, it has been proposed that a small number of Members who may be unable physically to attend the House on the grounds of long-term disability should continue to be able to take part in our business remotely. Eligible Members would be free to choose their mode of participation and take part either physically or remotely. The commission has decided that requests to become an eligible Member should be considered by an additional support group chaired by the Senior Deputy Speaker. If the package before the House is agreed, further details on how a request can be made will be circulated.

Eligible Members who choose to participate remotely will not have the parity with physical speakers that we have seen throughout the hybrid House. Nor will remote participation be immediately available in the Moses Room for technical reasons; a solution is being worked on, but it will take some time. But, by giving sufficient notice, eligible Members will be able to take part remotely in all business in the Chamber. Eligible Members would also be exempt from having to declare that they are present on the estate when voting. Of course, making the Chamber and House as accessible as possible remains a key priority and we will look to make improvements where we can to ensure that Members can participate physically in the House if and when they wish to do so.

I stress again that the Procedure and Privileges Committee and the commission will keep all these adaptations under review and consider them further if necessary. But I hope that, for the most part, your Lordships will be satisfied with the progress we are hoping to make to get our House back to how it should be. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ contributions on these matters today and returning to a fuller, livelier and more effective House in September. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I fully support the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s report and the decision for the House to return to as normal as possible with your Lordships being present in the House, except, of course, severely disabled Members. It is also important that we return to the practice that your Lordships should be physically in the—[Inaudible.]

Could my noble friend the Minister clarify whether Members of your Lordships’ House are obliged to attend Select Committee meetings physically or whether they will still be able to continue attending online? I am not talking about anyone who is giving evidence. Will it still be illegal to attend any meeting from a car or train if we continue to be able to participate remotely?

Legislation was passed during the Covid lockdown without any debate in your Lordships’ House and without any votes. This diktat is considered legal as it is included now in the Standing Orders. This point does not—[Inaudible.] I wonder whether it could be clarified by the Minister for your Lordships.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The noble Baroness keeps cutting out so it is probably best that we move to the next speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

Yes, the next speaker is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is present.

Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That Baroness Doocey be appointed as a Parliamentary member of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body in place of Baroness Scott of Needham Market.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Thursday 15 July to allow the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Afghanistan

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, when the UK first committed troops to Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the mission was clear. It was to destroy al-Qaeda’s ability to mount any further international terrorist attacks from the country. As the Statement makes clear, in this crucial respect the mission has been a success. However, while this is undoubtedly correct, it does not begin to give a balanced picture of the state of Afghanistan as the final British troops leave.

While the original mission was limited to destroying al-Qaeda, it rapidly became something more ambitious: to replace the Taliban regime with one which more closely fitted western norms of behaviour, not least in respect of the treatment of women and girls. At one level, this too has been a success: there has been a series of democratically elected Governments; there has been the education of millions of girls, and there has been a degree of economic development, particularly in and around Kabul, but there has not been stability. The Taliban never went away, and it is now rapidly filling the vacuum left by the departed NATO forces. However depressing this situation is, the Statement is undoubtedly correct that the UK on its own is not in a position to fill the void created as American troops return home. For the United Kingdom, the Statement reflects harsh reality.

Anyone who has heard recent testament of young professional women in Afghanistan who now fear for not only their livelihoods but their lives or who sees the pathetic attempts of thousands in Afghanistan to sell what little they have to leave the country before the Taliban returns cannot avoid the conclusion that the broader aims of the international intervention in the country are under real threat. The Statement says that the UK will not turn away from Afghanistan and that we will use

“every diplomatic and humanitarian lever”

to support the country. If true, this would be very welcome, but what is the commitment likely to mean in practice?

Let us start with aid. The Government are dramatically cutting the amount of development aid they are giving the country, including a 70% reduction in programmes for women and girls. This is harsh and perverse. Will they now reverse these cuts, or are they in reality breaking their promise to maximise their humanitarian response?

After much dither and delay, the Government have recently allowed Afghan interpreters who have worked with British forces to relocate directly to the UK. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, and as we heard in Questions in your Lordships’ House last week, they are not automatically doing so for such interpreters currently in third countries. Will they now agree to do so not just as a matter of course but as a matter of conscience?

American intelligence currently believes that, as things stand, Kabul could fall to the Taliban within six months. Do the Government share this assessment, and are there any circumstances in which they would consider renewed military intervention to prevent it? The Taliban has claimed that it has changed and become less harsh, not least in its attitude towards women and girls, but such statements are widely mistrusted and not borne out by recent evidence. What diplomatic pressure is the UK seeking to bring to bear in association with its international allies and through the UN to ensure that the Taliban keeps to its commitments?

Today’s Statement reflects the fact that liberal interventionism, as expressed after the twin tower bombings, cannot succeed unless there is a broad consensus in the country where the intervention takes place to follow the norms set by western liberal democracies, but in countries where there is no history of democracy and where there remain deep tribal and regional fissures, and where no such consensus emerges, it is bound ultimately to fall short or fail.

The challenge now is to support those in Afghanistan who seek to promote democracy and tolerance and to put as much pressure as possible short of military intervention on the Taliban to moderate its policies. This will not be easy, but we owe it to the 457 British military personnel who have died in Afghanistan, to the thousands who still carry physical and mental scars and to those thousands of young Afghans, men and women, who are desperate for a brighter, tolerant future for their country to do whatever we can to prevent a return to the horrors of the past.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments, and I wholeheartedly endorse their tributes to our brave personnel who served in Afghanistan, to our NATO allies and, of course, to the people of Afghanistan. I also align myself with the comments made by both about the need to make sure that we do not lose the gains. I completely accept that there are many challenges ahead, but progress, particularly in relation to civil society and helping the development of the Afghan Government, cannot be lost. I hope to cover some of those issues as I go through my remarks.

The noble Baroness asked about discussions around the decision. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to US Secretary Blinken before the NATO announcement, and he has had numerous meetings since, as has the Defence Secretary, who met his counterparts from the US, France and Germany, and, of course, the Prime Minister discussed Afghanistan directly with President Biden on 10 June and at the NATO summit. There was also a lot of discussion about it at the summit.

The noble Baroness asked about the threat of al-Qaeda. We assess that al-Qaeda is now less active in Afghanistan than before 2001, but the group has not ceased to exist and remains a threat to both Afghanistan and the international community, so Afghanistan remains a counterterrorism priority. That is why we are working closely with the US and NATO allies to ensure that we are able to protect our shared interest in tackling terrorism, and we will continue to do that.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the political process. We have provided crucial capacity-building and technical advice to the Afghan Ministry for Peace and training for the Afghan negotiating team. We have enhanced the inclusivity of the negotiations through capacity-building support to the Afghan negotiation team, women’s networks and civil society organisations to help build women’s meaningful participation and representation, an issue touched on by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. We are working closely with international and regional partners to further support peace efforts. The noble Baroness and noble Lord are absolutely right, and we have been very clear about it, as have all our international allies, that any political settlement must protect the progress made in the country, particularly around protection for women and minority groups.

The Prime Minister also spoke to President Ghani on 17 June and underlined our commitment to supporting Afghanistan to achieve a stable and democratic future following the withdrawal of troops. He gave his personal support, and they resolved together to continue working to counter the terrorist threat in Afghanistan. Those discussions will continue through international fora and directly with colleagues in the Afghanistan Government.

I reassure the noble Baroness that we remain committed to working with the US, NATO allies and international partners to support the ongoing training and mentoring of the Afghan defence force, and we will continue to provide financial and sustainment support until at least 2024. That is a commitment that we have already made. Obviously, we are extremely proud of the role we played during our 20 years in Afghanistan in helping to build that defence force and the resilience it has shown. It has been leading the security in Afghanistan for the past six years, and it has been a privilege for us to work with it.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about our international support. We will continue to support Afghanistan with more than £100 million of development assistance this year; it will remain one of the largest bilateral recipients of UK aid. We will continue to be a significant contributor to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, through which we will support rural development, building resilience to climatic shocks and infrastructure development. We will also continue to work to consolidate the substantial development gains that have been delivered since 2001. Through our Afghanistan multiyear humanitarian response programme, we will continue to provide urgent life-saving assistance and respond to immediate humanitarian need.

The noble Lord rightly talked about the significant progress that has been made in Afghanistan since 2001, not only on women’s rights but on the rights of minority groups, media freedoms, freedom of expression and access to education. It is imperative that we continue to work to protect this, and we will do so with our international allies and the Afghan Government to ensure this.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the ARAP relocation programme. The noble Baroness is absolutely right; we owe a huge debt of gratitude to interpreters and other locally employed staff who risk their lives working alongside UK forces in Afghanistan. We have already supported more than 1,500 former Afghan staff and their families to create new lives in the UK. The noble Lord is right that the ARAP process requires applicants to be in Afghanistan, as they are likely to face the greatest risks, but those in a third country seeking help to relocate can also contact the Afghan Threat and Risk Evaluation Unit for advice, which they will be given, so they can also access support through that. We are significantly accelerating the pace of relocations, in parallel with the military withdrawal, because we understand and accept that the situation for some in the country has changed. We will do all we can to continue to support those people who wish to relocate to the United Kingdom.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, we come now to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that we can hear from the maximum number of speakers.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

The Statement highlights some of the progress made on women’s participation and girls’ education, but in recent weeks we have seen thousands of brave women protesting in the streets for the freedoms that they know the Taliban will deny them. I fear for their futures. What programmes focused on women and girls will the UK Government support in the months and years ahead?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her continued passion on this issue and for continually holding our feet to the fire. I reassure her that we remain absolutely committed to supporting women and girls in Afghanistan. She will be pleased to know that there are now 3.6 million girls enrolled in school, which is 27% of children enrolled. Since 2013, UK funding has enabled over one-quarter of a million girls in Afghanistan to receive an education. We will continue to support programmes such as the Girls’ Education Challenge fund, the second phase of which was launched in 2020 and supports more than 70,000 marginalised girls to access education. It is one of the many programmes we will continue to support.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the Prime Minister referred more than once last Thursday to working with our friends on an “outside-in approach” to counterterrorism. Does that mean that we will have contingency plans with NATO allies, including offensive air operations, whether or not that is in direct support of Afghan government forces? If not, what does outside-in mean?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I can tell the noble and gallant Lord that we will continue to support and train Afghan institutions, including the national police and the national army, and strengthen their ability and the ability of the defence and security forces to counter security threats. That and other capacity-building work is aimed at increasing the self-reliance of Afghan forces in the fight against terrorism. We will continue to work shoulder to shoulder with them.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I am someone who thought it absolutely right to go in to remove al-Qaeda in 2001 and who has always been a passionate supporter of the potential for humanitarian military intervention, but we have to acknowledge that this has not gone as well as we hoped. Why are the Government so reluctant to set up an objective inquiry into lessons learned from the Afghan experience of the last 20 years? It has been a tremendous cost, in human blood, disablement and treasure. We owe it to the people who have suffered to examine this question very deeply.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, and I hope I can reassure him by saying that there have been reviews. After the conclusion of Operation Herrick in 2014, there was a thorough internal review. As he will know, some of the further lessons that have been learned have played a key role in helping to shape our integrated review, so I do not think it is fair to say that no lessons have been learned. However, he is right that we are not at this point minded to consider a Chilcot-style public inquiry. We are not convinced that the benefits would outweigh it, and we are concerned that such an inquiry could take far longer and be far more expensive than Chilcot, which itself took seven years and cost more than £13 million. The relevant time period in Afghanistan was twice as long. However, I reassure the noble Lord that we have learned lessons and continue to do so. We will continue to use the integrated review to follow them through.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an ambassador for HALO, a charity that is active in both mine and ordnance clearance in Afghanistan. I accept that the Government’s intentions are good, but we must take account of the reality of what is happening. Units of the Afghan army are taking their uniforms off and handing their arms and equipment to the Taliban. In those areas that the Taliban now controls, it is already barring girls from school and undermining the rights of women. How in those circumstances, when that is happening locally, can we trust what may be agreed nationally?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. As the Statement set out, while we have had some achievements in Afghanistan, particularly in security, he is absolutely right and we accept that significant challenges remain. We are very proud that, alongside our allied forces, we have helped to train, advise and assist the Afghan national security forces to build them into an increasingly capable force, notwithstanding what the noble Lord said, in providing security. In particular, we helped set up the Afghan National Army Officer Academy, which delivers 70% of the army’s combat leaders annually, equating to 5,500 highly trained officers to date, of which around 330 are women. I do not dispute that there are challenges ahead, but we have made real gains and will continue to support those important institutions to help bring peace to their country.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, seeing young girls in school and everything that means for the future of Afghanistan reassures me and, I am sure, many others who served there that our efforts were not in vain. The question is whether they will still be in school in three years’ time. That is probably down to the effectiveness of the Afghan national security forces in countering the Taliban. I worry sometimes when we seem to suggest that the answer to all these problems is simply to shovel more cash into Afghanistan. To pick up on my noble friend’s previous answer, I seek her reassurance that we will continue to offer practical training support in the Afghan National Army Officer Academy by having people there, as that is why it has been successful over the past few years.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. We are extremely proud of our achievements with the officer academy. Of course, we will continue to work with it and listen to the kinds of support that the Afghan people and Afghan national security forces would like to ensure that they can do their extremely challenging job.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, in the Statement the Government seem to rely on the Taliban undertaking that it will prevent any group or individual, including al-Qaeda, from using Afghanistan to threaten the security of the US and its allies. In their reliance on this undertaking, what support are they providing to Pakistan, Nigeria, Mali and Mozambique—the list goes on—in terms of their safety, freedom or security, or do the Government believe that those countries are dispensable or unimportant in relying on the Taliban to stick to its pledges?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

We certainly do not consider our international allies in the way the noble Baroness seems to suggest. We all need to work together internationally to support the Afghan Government. As NATO partners have said, we have been very clear that this military withdrawal comes in the context of a renewed regional and domestic push for peace in Afghanistan. As she rightly says, the terms of the US-Taliban agreement involve commitments it made on preventing international terrorism in its territory, including its relationship with al-Qaeda, which it must deliver on. However, we will work with all international partners to provide the support we can to the Afghan Government.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will be aware that the Prime Minister informed the Commons on Thursday that he had pledged to President Ghani that the UK would continue to support the Afghan national security forces with at least £58 million annually. Given that any settlement between the Afghan Government and the Taliban is bound to mean the Taliban’s involvement in government, what would be the policy of the UK towards maintaining these current levels of support in those circumstances? What safeguards would there be to ensure that the money is used for the purposes intended?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

Of course we will work to ensure that any funding goes to where it should, and I am sure we will keep things under review as the situation goes on. The Prime Minister has been very clear to President Ghani about our commitment to support him and his Government and our resolve to counter terrorist threats going forward. Of course all these things will be under review as we work together, but we have a close dialogue with the Afghan Government, and that will continue, to make sure that we can support them in the best and most effective way that we can.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement emphasises the defeat of transnational terrorism in Afghanistan using Afghanistan as a base, but we all know that transnational terrorism has moved: first to Iraq and Syria and now to the ungoverned Sahel. We understand that Britain now has a significant commitment of forces to the Sahel, in co-operation with the French and as part of a UN agency, but this is not reported to the UK Parliament very frequently. Would the Minister give some commitment that the role of UK forces committed either to the UN operation or to co-operation with the French, across the Sahel, will be reported more fully to Parliament so that we can understand the rationale and the nature of the threat they are facing?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am very happy to speak to my noble friend Lady Goldie and have her contact the noble Lord for such a discussion.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we went into Afghanistan to stop it being a global terrorist base. We did it successfully for 20 years and, obviously, we could not stay permanently. Surely now it is up to the Afghan people to decide their own future, but we must ensure that the Taliban are left in no doubt that they must honour the undertaking referred to in the Statement or, yet again, face the consequences. In that connection, I hope that the Pakistan Government will reinforce that message.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. He is absolutely right. As I have said, we are under no illusion about the significant challenges that remain within Afghanistan, but there have been achievements. As he rightly said, our primary objective, when we deployed to Afghanistan 20 years ago, was to ensure it was not used by al-Qaeda as a successful base for further international attacks. In that mission, we have been successful; there has not been a single successful terrorist attack launched on the West since then, obviously notwithstanding what the noble Lord said about terrorist threats in other areas. That has been the achievement of our very brave Armed Forces and the people of Afghanistan, and we must not forget it.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, Afghanistan and beyond, including the Sahel corridor, must become and continue to remain a priority. Aspects of the Statement’s cautiously optimistic messaging disguise ominous signals on the ground, all underlining these perilous times. Does the Leader of the House remember that it was the lawlessness in Afghanistan that resulted in the original acceptance of the Taliban entering Afghanistan from the Pakistan borderlands, and one of the contributory factors to the lawlessness was heroin production? What was accomplished to stem the industry during our time in Afghanistan, or is the industry carrying on as before?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

We have provided mentoring and support to dedicated units in the counter-narcotics police of Afghanistan. Since 2010, these units have seized 18 tonnes of heroin, 70 tonnes of opium, almost 1,700 weapons as well as $3 million and $100 million of assets. So, we have been working with the Afghan counter-narcotics police to tackle this trade and we will continue to do so.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab) [V]]

Would the noble Baroness agree that, given the rapid advances currently being made by the Taliban, there is little incentive for them to enter into peace talks, and so the turbulence is likely to persist for some time? Given that, what will be the effects on food aid to the needy? What advice are we giving to the aid agencies? What is the effect on the functioning of our embassy? Are we withdrawing personnel at the moment?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The UK embassy in Kabul will remain open after the end of the Resolute Support Mission. We take the protection of our staff extremely seriously and will keep security under constant review. In the immediate term, there will be a small number of troops, consistent with a diplomatic presence, that will remain to offer assurance to the international community in Kabul as we transfer to the end of the mission.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, the British Armed Forces are to be applauded for their commitment and tenacity on behalf of us all over the last 20 years to keep us safe. Would the Leader of the House say if there will be a residual garrison remaining in Afghanistan to protect British interests, such as consul buildings, and does she believe the Taliban when they say they have changed their views on the emancipation and education of girls and women?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

All UK troops assigned to NATO’s Resolute Support Mission will draw down with allies and partners, but as I said in my answer to the previous question, in the immediate term a small number of troops consistent with a diplomatic presence will remain to offer assurance to the international community in Kabul.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, the departure of the allied forces from Afghanistan under the current circumstance is, frankly, heartbreaking, especially for the families of the 457 Armed Forces personnel who were killed and indeed for the many who came back without legs and other limbs. It is absolutely heartbreaking. Should the Taliban take over in Kabul, as seems depressingly possible, it will be a failure of policy over the last 20 years. It will be a disaster not unlike that of the first Afghan war, the history of which should perhaps have been studied more closely by those who committed troops in numbers to Afghanistan in 2005. If the Taliban should become the Government in Kabul, what would be Her Majesty’s Government’s intention—would we then recognise the Taliban as the Government of Afghanistan?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am afraid that I am not going to speculate on issues like that. We strongly support efforts to energise the Afghan peace process. The Taliban have no military route to realising their political goals, so if they wish to play a political role in Afghanistan’s future, they must share the goals of stability and security for its population and engage meaningfully in the peace negotiations.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, many faiths—including a thriving Sikh population of many thousands—have had to flee Afghanistan because of the hardening of extremism, resulting from repeated invasions from Britain, then Russia and, more recently, America and the West. Bombs and missiles cannot change mindsets. Would the Minister agree with the statement by former Prime Minister Theresa May that Britain should stop being the self-appointed policeman of the world? It is a policy copied by others that creates ever more refugees in a suffering world.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

There has been significant progress in human rights in Afghanistan since 2001, as I said, in connection to women’s rights, the rights of minority groups, freedom of expression and access to education. We will continue to work with the Afghan Government and international allies to protect this.

[Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, what recent discussions have the Government had with the relevant authorities in Pakistan? It is acknowledged that Pakistan can play a crucial role in influencing the Taliban and securing the peace process, that could avoid another decent into civil war in Afghanistan. If there have been no such discussions with Pakistan, would the Leader of the House say why?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am afraid that I do not have a running list of every negotiation happening, but I am very happy to go back to colleagues and write to the noble Baroness with recent contacts.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as it happens, today is Malala Yousafzai’s 24th birthday—an exceptionally forceful reminder that the right to education and the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan simply cannot be ignored. I accept the unwillingness to give a running commentary of who we have or have not talked to. However, we know that things are not going to get any easier. Will the Minister undertake to give more precise details of how the Government intend to, first, deal with Pakistan in that relationship and, secondly, ensure that the right to education for girls will continue to progress in even a slightly comparable way to the progress we have made so far?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said, I have already made a commitment to write on Pakistan, so I shall do that.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Americans, in their discussions with Britain, discussed giving freedom and assistance not only to Afghanistan and other countries but to the women peacebuilders and those women at the peace table. How many women are we going to assist and bring to Britain or a safe country, and how long will it be before the Government make these arrangements? The women are at great risk and some, as noble Lords will know, have already been murdered.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said in earlier answers, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy was launched on 1 April. We are speeding up that process to ensure that anyone whose life is in danger in Afghanistan can access this programme and build a new life in the UK.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, all listed speakers have asked their questions. There will now be a short pause before we commence the next business.

G7 and NATO Summits

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect that, for many people, the sight of the G7 leaders going about their business in a professional and businesslike manner in Cornwall was a great relief after the chaos of the Trump years. The 25-page long White House communiqué, which covers most of the world’s most pressing problems is, at first sight, extremely impressive. Any lingering concerns are not so much to do with the institution—to coin a phrase, “the G7 is back”—but over whether the specific pledges made are substantial enough to meet the challenges the communiqué identifies.

Before coming to the G7, the Prime Minister made great play in his Statement of signing the New Atlantic Charter with President Biden. As noble Lords will be aware, the first Atlantic Charter, signed in 1941, led to the formation of the United Nations. Could the noble Baroness inform the House of any single, specific initiative—large or small—she believes or hopes will flow from the new charter? If she is unable to do so, could she explain why the charter should be seen as anything other than a mere PR stunt?

On the summit itself, the Government very sensibly chose to steer their deliberations by commissioning the noble Lord, Lord Stern of Brentford, to set out the scale of ambition they should adopt. His report, G7 Leadership for Sustainable, Resilient and Inclusive Economic Recovery and Growth, sets out a definitive agenda for action on all the key issues the summit addressed. The communiqué simply thanks the noble Lord, Lord Stern, for his efforts, but sadly fails to rise to the challenges he sets. Take just three examples.

First, on Covid vaccines, the noble Lord points to the urgent need to close the £20 billion funding gap for COVAX. The summit committed to only a small fraction of that. Will the UK Government not only redouble their commitment to make vaccines available to those in the rest of the world who need them most and can afford them least, but commit to diverting surplus vaccines in the UK, and do so in the speediest possible fashion?

Secondly, on climate change the noble Lord, Lord Stern, makes the case for a doubling of climate finance and for a commitment to go beyond the $100 billion target to help developing countries to decarbonise. Such a commitment is lacking in the communiqué. Does the noble Baroness accept that, by cutting overseas development assistance, the Government significantly undermined the prospect of getting the necessary funding into developing countries, and in doing so, have made it much less likely they will agree to ambitious decarbonisation targets at COP 26?

Thirdly, on girls’ education, the communiqué commits to the target of getting 40 million more girls into school by 2026, which is terrific. Can the noble Baroness therefore explain why the Government have cut their bilateral support for girls’ education in the poorest countries by 40%? Can she explain whether the funds the Government have announced for the Global Partnership for Education are new money or simply a new announcement of old money?

The communiqué covers an extremely wide range of issues, but one final issue leapt out of the page for me. The text praises the

“incredible contribution of caregivers in our societies … and the importance of improving decent working conditions for these caregivers”.

What improved provision do the Government have in mind? Will they, as a start, commit to improving the provision of respite care so that carers, who are increasingly at the end of their tether as Covid restrictions continue to affect them, will get at least some relief from the very onerous daily burdens they carry?

The Prime Minister includes in his Statement reference to the trade deal with Australia. Will the noble Baroness confirm that the absolute maximum benefit this trade deal could conceivably deliver equates to one penny per person per week? Does she accept that the cost of this derisory benefit will be overwhelmed by the damage the deal threatens to do to our livestock industry—particularly in upland areas—and that the potential increased access to Australia for young people is frankly risible compared to their reduced access to live, work and study in Europe as a result of Brexit?

The Statement very wisely ignores the unseemly row on the margins of the summit around the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol and perhaps that is a matter for another day. But may I remind the noble Baroness that the single most important ingredient for conducting summits and international affairs successfully is trust? Through his unwillingness to stick to international law and his track record of breaking his promises, this Prime Minister has squandered it. Until it is rebuilt, our influence on the world stage will remain seriously impaired.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lord for their comments and questions. They both rightly asked about vaccinations and, as they will know, G7 leaders committed to providing at least a further 1 billion doses to the poorest countries to help vaccinate the world by the end of 2022 through dose sharing and finance. The G7 will share at least half of these by the end of 2021. We have committed to providing at least 100 million surplus Covid vaccine doses to the rest of the world within the next year and 5 million will be shared by the end of September, with another 30 million by the end of 2021.

The noble Baroness is right that sharing supply, boosting manufacturing and funding the COVAX scheme all have critical roles. That is why G7 leaders talked about, and want to take concrete actions to overcome, bottlenecks and want to boost manufacturing so that we can increase the supply. The vaccines we will be providing will be across all our supply: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen and Moderna. We will be working with leaders to continue to ramp up that effort.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord rightly raised climate change and the work done on that. Commitments were made at the summit. Most G7 countries will be reducing emissions by more than half by 2030, compared to 2010 levels. All countries will formally commit to their specific reductions when submitting their nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. Each country will also set up policy plans and milestones on how they plan to meet these, as we have done with our carbon budget.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked about the climate finance commitment and, of course, we were the first G7 member to substantially increase our commitment. At the summit, Canada committed to doubling its climate finance through to 2025 and France, Germany, Japan and the US also agreed to increase their commitments, so there was welcome progress.

Both the noble Baroness and noble Lord talked about girls’ education, which is a priority for this Government. At the G7 summit, the Prime Minister announced that we will be pledging £430 million to the Global Partnership for Education for the next five years, which is our largest pledge ever and an uplift of 15%. At the summit the G7 collectively pledged at least $2.7 billion towards the Global Partnership for Education and we will continue to encourage partners around the world to contribute to that fund.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the Northern Ireland protocol. We are working to support the Good Friday agreement and urgently need to find solutions to support the peace process and minimise disruption. There was discussion of the protocol with our European partners at the summit. Those discussions will continue because we all want to ensure that we get to a satisfactory resolution.

The noble Baroness seemed to suggest that there had not been much movement on, for instance, global tax, over the last few years. But at the G7 we saw a major breakthrough on the issue that has been under discussion for over five years, particularly back in the historic two-pillar international agreement on global tax reform, to address the tax challenges we face. We are very hopeful that this agreement will provide a strong basis for securing a more detailed and comprehensive agreement among the G20 and OECD in July.

On the Australia trade deal, I am sure that the noble Lord will be delighted to know that the UK-Australia trade relationship was worth £13.9 billion last year and is set to grow under this deal. I assure him that British farmers will be protected by a cap on tariff-free imports for 15 years, using tariff-rate quotas and safeguards. To the noble Baroness I say that, when the agreement is published, there will be a chapter on animal welfare, because we have been very clear that we will not compromise on our high standards. I can also confirm that, of course, formal scrutiny of the ratification process will take place once we have laid the final agreement—this will be once we have undergone legal checks—and the impact assessment will be published with it.

The noble Lord asked about the Atlantic charter. It recognises that the values that the US and UK share remain the same as they were in 1941, including defending democracy, reaffirming the importance of collective security and building a fair and sustainable global trading system. There was a very constructive relationship between the Prime Minister and President Biden, and it was a very successful summit.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Perhaps there is just time to say to the noble Baroness that there were a number of specific questions that she did not answer. Can she look through the notes and respond in writing if possible?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

If there are questions that I have not answered, I will.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, the UK-US relationship has been the cornerstone of our shared prosperity and security for over a century and should remain so. Therefore, I warmly welcome the New Atlantic Charter. The original charter was a catalyst for promoting free trade through the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Given that the pandemic has hit the world’s poorest hardest, with an estimated 150 million people pushed back into extreme poverty, while the world’s richest have seen their fortunes increase by over 25%, how can this new charter emulate its predecessor by re-energising free trade, which benefits the poorest people in the poorest countries, and steer us away from protectionism, which favours the rich in the richest countries?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. When the Prime Minister and the President met in Cornwall, they agreed that the revitalised charter was a fitting testament to the sheer breadth and depth of co-operation between our countries. They have resolved to take this co-operation further by expanding trade and progressing towards a UK-US free trade agreement and of course, as he rightly said, by continuing to promote the benefits of free trade more globally.

[Lord Ricketts (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the organisers of the G7 summit on their practical arrangements and welcome the outcome of the NATO summit. The major democracies really have found their collective voice again, even if the opportunity for the UK to send a signal in Cornwall that we were working in unison with our friends on the big global issues was spoiled by the Prime Minister engaging in a very public row with European leaders. Bearing in mind that the hallmark of a really successful G7 is that its conclusions get implemented, could the noble Baroness tell us which organisation will be responsible for delivering what I think is the most innovative idea of the summit, the Build Back Better World partnership, to unlock billions in private investment for green infrastructure in poorer countries?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord and assure him that the proposition will now be worked up by a designated task force that will consult with developing countries and other key partners and will report back to leaders on progress in the autumn.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, there is much to welcome in the communiqué post the NATO conference. The continental European nations in particular are seeming to wake up to the wide-ranging threat posed by Russia and the challenge presented by China. The revitalised Atlantic charter, new strategic concept and higher level of ambition set by the NATO 2030 agenda are crucial for our future security. Does the Minister agree that these aims call inevitably for an increase in European nations’ national defence expenditure and NATO common funding? Does she also agree that the UK should continue to lead by example and commit to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP to ensure that these new commitments, agreed by the Prime Minister, are met?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

At the NATO summit, leaders did indeed recommit to NATO’s defence investment pledge target of investing 2% of GDP in defence—10 allies meet that target now, and 20 are on track to meet it by 2024. Since 2014, defence investment by non-US allies has increased for seven consecutive years, with a real increase of 4.1% in 2021. So there is still work to do, but we are getting there.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Unlike the UK-hosted Gleneagles summit, which had the communiqué reference to the 0.7% target and the UK encouraging all other G8 members to meet it, and unlike the Lough Erne summit, where the Prime Minister’s official documentation and public statements encouraged other G8 members to meet the 0.7% target, this year there was no mention of any Minister encouraging any G7 country to meet that target. Will the Leader, as a member of the Cabinet, take the opportunity now, at the Dispatch Box, to encourage her G7 counterparts to meet the 0.7% UN target?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am certainly happy to reiterate at the Dispatch Box that the UK is a world-leading aid donor. We have the third-largest budget in the G7 and will spend at least £10 billion in aid this year. We remain one of the highest contributors to overseas development in the G7, as a share of GNI and pound for pound.

[Baroness Fall (Con) [V]]

The original vision of the G7 was a fireside chat, where the world’s most powerful men and women addressed the world’s most pressing problems—and there are certainly many of those. Sometimes these meetings can miss the mark, but I was proud of this one. However, as usual, the devil is in the detail and the execution. Therefore, I will ask about the language on climate change: what is their plan to bring China, India and Brazil to the table ahead of the COP and to boost global partnerships for education? What about the drastic cuts to other funds for girls in education? In Carbis Bay, we saw a welcome return to multinationalism, including a consensus on how to manage China, but there is way more work to be done. I am sure that, like me, the Minister was proud of Britain’s hosting of the G7, but will she agree that we have our work cut out to ensure that we can be proud of its legacy?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As the noble Baroness will be aware, China is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases and accounts for more than half of the global demand for coal—so we want to work with China in the run-up to COP to raise its ambition on climate change and find a path to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees at COP 26.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the Cornish weather and on managing not to insult or annoy Canada. The biggest challenge to the G7 was clearly the accelerating pandemic, which has now taken 3.5 million lives across the world, with more dying this year already than in all of last year. The shaming fact is that only 0.3% of vaccine supply currently goes to low-income countries. Some 11 billion doses are needed now—so I am afraid that the G7 failed the challenge. Its aspiration to supply 870 million doses by the end of next year, and our talk of contributing 100 million, is painfully inadequate in both quantity and speed. I am afraid that Gordon Brown is right. Will the Minister please convey to the Cabinet the feeling of very many of us in this House that it would be good if we raised our game on vaccine supply before the G20 meeting in Venice?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. He is right that this is a huge global challenge and we all need to work together to deliver on it. However, I point out that the Oxford vaccine is a very important way of helping tackle this pandemic. Of course, we part-funded it, and it is being produced at cost to low and middle-income countries and at scale through manufacturing partnerships across the world. This is already ensuring that more than half a billion doses of the vaccine are available across the world. Of course, we have to ensure that we continue to roll it out, but it is also worth remembering the huge contribution that we have already made through the Oxford vaccine.

[Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure which specific question my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition wanted the Minister to answer, but there is one that she put to her that I would like to repeat, to give the Leader of the House the opportunity to answer it at the Dispatch Box today. From the beginning of discussions on global corporation tax, other countries in the G7 indicated support for an initial rate of 21%, so why do the Government seek to weaken it? Could the noble Baroness please answer that question? At the same time, can she make clear what the Government will do to strengthen global tax systems as a matter of urgency to stop the continuing tax dodging of firms such as Amazon and Google?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said, this was a major breakthrough, and different countries of course have different views on what the minimum rate will be. Compromise is necessary to reach the final agreement among the 130 members of the OECD inclusive framework, but we think that the position agreed at the G7 is one that the OECD and G20 can coalesce around.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the Prime Minister, not least on his theatrical prowess, because yesterday he gave a very good performance of Dr Pangloss in the other place. I return to the point so ably made by the noble Lord, Lord West. Do the Government really appreciate that the ambitions contained in the integrated review and the agreement in Brussels for the “wholesale modernisation” of NATO will require a much larger defence budget than at present, including even the £16 billion promised by this Government over the next four years?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said, it was a very successful summit. I said in response to an earlier question that non-US allies within NATO are increasing their defence spending. The decisions and agreements made at NATO aligned very much with the integrated review, so we will certainly play a leading role, as we always do, in helping to move this forward.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I give a warm welcome to the aim to expand the G7 into a D11—a new grouping of democracies. Will that consist purely of heads of nation states or will it continue to include the two chief EU figures, as hitherto? I particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s aim to move on from the outdated “special relationship” phrase, which was used so much with the USA. Does my noble friend recall the observation of our noble friend Lord Hague a decade ago that our links with America should be “solid but not slavish”? Does she agree that a revised US connection should be based more on partnership than on simple followership? Should we not have our noble friend Lord Hague’s wise adage very much in mind?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The Government’s aim in inviting Australia, India, South Korea and South Africa to the G7 summit was to increase co-operation among democratic like-minded partners on global issues, reflecting our shared value of openness. We do not see this grouping of 11 democracies as fixed, limited or replacing the G7, but it was a symbol of our desire with others to strengthen like-minded international co-operation. We look forward to the US-hosted Summit for Democracy, which will take place later this year.

On my noble friend’s point about America, he is absolutely right. The original Atlantic Charter demonstrates that the UK-US relationship has been one of partnership rather than followership for decades. We look forward to that continuing.

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB) [V]]

My Lords, at a time when Africa accounts for more than 20% of the world’s population but has less than 3% of global GDP, and less than 2% of the continent is vaccinated, what reassurances can be taken from the G7 summit that more urgent focus will be given to administering the vaccine programme, addressing conflict resolution and peacekeeping, and assisting with family planning in Africa?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

At the summit, the G7 leaders announced plans to deepen the G7’s current partnership with developing countries and deliver a new deal for Africa, including magnifying support from the IMF for countries most in need. The increased funding for COVAX will help with the vaccine rollout within countries in Africa.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, it was reported that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations had observer status at the summit. Was this regarded as a successful new initiative and is it likely to be repeated? It seemed to me to be very welcome.

I welcome the strong wording in the G7 communiqué about establishing the Democracy 11, and the strong wording in the outcome of the NATO summit about defending the borders of free nations in the east of Europe from Russian expansionism. Will the Government therefore guarantee that any current support available for conflict prevention, peacebuilding and institution building in those eastern European nations will be maintained, despite the cuts to the budget for official development assistance in the UK?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I have said in response to previous questions, we remain and will remain a world-leading aid donor. Officials are currently looking through the implementation plans for our spending and I am sure that the noble Lord’s comments will be taken into account.

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we very much welcome the G7 meeting here in Cornwall, where I speak at the moment, and we thank those who came for the good weather. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, what I really welcome is the concept of the Build Back Better World initiative. However, it seems potentially far too complex as it is explained at the moment. As we know from the Marshall plan after the Second World War, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the belt and road initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, having simple single funders for these programmes works best. Will that be the case for B3W?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The new approach is intended to give developing countries access to more, better and faster finance while accelerating the global shift to renewable energy and sustainable technology, and it is intended to expand the current investment offer by bringing in private finance for clean and green infrastructure in developing countries, to ensure that they have autonomy over their climate investments and ensure financial sustainability and access to cutting-edge technology and financing projects. As I said, a designated taskforce will look at the details, consult developing countries and other partners and report back on progress in the autumn.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome as a first step the proposal on the 100 million surplus doses that the UK is now committed to. As we know, low-income countries desperately need more vaccines, and quickly. The PM confirmed yesterday that those vaccines will be donated on top of the existing aid budget, which is great news, but does that mean that they will be funded on top of the 0.5% of GNI or on top of the £10 billion of aid already committed? The former would be very welcome, and I hope the first step on a road back to 0.7%, but the latter would mean that these vaccines were paid for by the surplus of mistakenly overcutting our life-saving aid programmes. Can my noble friend clarify that point?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The cost of donating the UK’s vaccine surpluses will be classified as ODA and will be in addition to the £10 billion already committed to in aid this year.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

The next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an extraordinary week of summits. Two questions on the ambitions of the integrated review arise from the concluding statements. First, the US and the EU at their summit committed to co-ordinate policies and actions and to establish a US-EU high-level dialogue on and with Russia. With whom does the UK plan to pursue its interests vis-à-vis Russia? Will it be along with the US-EU framework or bilaterally with Russia? Secondly, Presidents Biden and Putin reaffirmed the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. Does the UK support that principle, and will it say so?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I do not think that any of us want a nuclear war—I certainly do not —so I am certainly happy to put that on the record. We will work with partners globally, internationally and through all fora, including NATO, in relation to Russia.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the organisers of the summit, including the police and other authorities, in ensuring not only its success but its safety.

The Foreign Secretary said yesterday in relation to the JCPOA that Iran must return to full compliance—and it is not just the stockpile of enriched uranium, which is 16 times the permitted limit, but the operation of centrifuges and production of uranium metal that is of deep concern. The opening paragraph of the statement says that the aim of the G7 summit

“was to demonstrate how the world’s democracies are ready and able to address the world’s toughest problems, offering solutions and backing them up with concrete action”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/21; col. 283.]

What are the solutions and concrete actions in relation to Iran?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The G7 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring that Iran will never develop a nuclear weapon, and they welcome the substantive discussions between the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action participants and separately with the United States to accomplish a return of the United States and Iran to their commitments. The leaders agreed that a restored and fully implemented plan of action could also pave the way to further address wider regional and security concerns, and condemned Iran’s support for proxy forces and non-state armed actors, including through financing training and the proliferation of missile technology and weapons.

Business of the House

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

That Standing Order 73 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to allow motions to approve affirmative instruments laid before the House under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to be moved today, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments will have been laid before the House.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

House of Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an extremely useful debate that has given us all a great deal to think about because, ultimately, it will be for the House as a whole to decide the way forward.

I, too, add my thanks to the staff of the House both for their incredible work developing and then facilitating our hybrid proceedings over the last 13 months and for their quick response this week that has allowed us to further increase the capacity in the Chamber today. While it still does not compare to a bustling Chamber in normal times, our debate has benefited from a greater physical presence. I also add my thanks to the Constitution Committee for its excellent and timely report, one of the main conclusions of which was that our hybrid proceedings have

“resulted in Parliament’s essential scrutiny role becoming less effective”.

I urge any noble Lord who has yet to do so to read the report.

As I think all contributors have recognised, the Hybrid Sittings were a necessary consequence of the pandemic. Decisions had to be made very quickly and often, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, without perhaps the consultation that we would normally expect, because of the necessity of the situation. We certainly would not have been able to function without them but in no significant way have they been better than what they replaced.

We have heard from noble Lords across the House what our proceedings have lost. The spontaneity and cut and thrust in debate were mentioned by my noble friends Lady Seccombe and Lord Trenchard, the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, among many others. The face-to-face interaction between Members was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. Effective cross-party working and the ability to get a sense of the mood of the House were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and my noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Caithness, have clearly expressed the view that the scrutiny of legislation and the House’s ability to hold Ministers to account have suffered significantly.

As my noble friend Lord Howe said in his opening remarks, it has also been much harder for Ministers to get a hearing in a relatively empty Chamber and for them to gauge the strength of feeling and mood of the House. I share that view.

In the round, the hybrid system is a pale imitation of what we had before. Noble Lords have raised other frustrations such as the need for speakers’ lists for practically every item of business, a lack of flexibility, and short speaking times in too many of our recent debates. Short speaking times have been a direct consequence of remote participation. Before our switch to hybrid, limits of one to two minutes were very rare. Across the three Sessions before the last one, only 2% of our debates had speaking limits of one or two minutes; in our first hybrid Session, that had risen to more than 30% of debates. Noble Lords have also said that our debates have at times felt stifled and that Members with expertise and experience who we would all want to have heard from have been crowded out.

While we have had near-unanimous agreement on what we have lost under the hybrid arrangements, there has been a range of opinions on what, if anything, we should keep. There does not seem to be a consensus on even some the fundamentals such as parity of treatment for all Members. Many of your Lordships have put forward different suggestions for the elements of hybrid that they would like to keep, while a few speeches later we have heard other Members say how much they dislike those elements. Of course, that is to be expected but I think this debate has shown that reality. Some things—for instance, remote witnesses at Select Committees and the information available on PeerHub—seem to have near-universal support, but many other things have divided opinion. I think we can all agree—and, indeed, many noble Lords have said—that there is still much debate for us all to have.

One thing that we have all learned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, mentioned, is the importance of business continuity plans. We must never lose the ability of this House to continue to meet, whatever the circumstances. This is certainly an issue that we will take forward and focus on in the coming weeks and months. We will continually revisit it and ensure that we can react to events that may hit us going forward.

As such, it seems to me that the real question is not whether we should return but how we should move forward. The political leadership in the House, members of the commission and the Privileges and Procedure Committee have much to reflect on. As I and noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, have said, such decisions ultimately lie with your Lordships’ House.

To get to where we are today, there have been 11 iterations of the hybrid House guidance. Each time, we have made piecemeal changes, tweaks and updates, all on the basis of emulating our own processes in a way that was compatible with the public health situation, which I think we all accept fall short.

Any long-term permanent changes need to be carefully thought through and considered in the round, as many noble Lords said. It has taken us 13 months to get to where we are, but it should not take another 13 months to work out what and how to move from here. As my noble friend Lord Howe has said, it is the Government’s belief that we should return to normal on all fronts, once, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, rightly said, social distancing rules and national restrictions allow.

While many noble Lords have observed that the world we had before was not perfect, there seems to be agreement that it was better than where we are now. As my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Lilley said, we should return to our normal ways of working and use them as the foundation on which to consider permanent changes. If we do not, then it is not clear to me, with so many issues to resolve and so many differing views around the House, what timescale we would actually have for moving back to some sense of normality.

We should not let our primary functions—scrutiny of legislation and holding the Government to account—suffer for any longer than is necessary. The way forward needs serious consideration—this debate has shown that—and the House as a whole needs to engage with that process. There may be some innovations we could make relatively rapidly where there is clear consensus, but others will need time for us to consider fully the implications and opportunity costs that keeping them may result in. Noble Lords should please remember that, if we have learned anything from the past 13 months, it is this: if we have agreement between us, we can move quickly.

A return to normality would also allow those new Members who have only known the hybrid House to compare the old and new ways of working, so that they too can contribute to these debates and perhaps add a new perspective. Of course, any return will not be before social distancing guidelines and national restrictions have been lifted. As so many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have said, safety is imperative, for both Members and staff. This has always been at the forefront of our minds throughout the pandemic. We will, obviously, continue to follow advice, as we have done up to this point.

Other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, spoke about the accessibility of Parliament. Once we are able to come back to normal, we must of course consider how to address concerns such as those she raised, because this House should be able to accommodate all noble Lords in person.

I share the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Cormack that are behind his Motion, and I recognise his strength of feeling. I hope that what he has heard from this debate is what he wanted—a range of opinions being expressed on the Floor of the House—and, on the basis of this, he will not feel the need to test the opinion of the House. As I have said, and as my noble friend said, we believe we should return to normality and begin any changes from that baseline. But the political leadership, Members of the commission, and the Procedure and Privileges Committee have been given much food for thought today. We all, I assure noble Lords, take our responsibilities to this House extremely seriously. As Leader of the House and a Member of the commission, I will play my full part in taking this forward.

Motion agreed.