EU Council June 2014
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(9 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. First, I associate these Benches with what the Statement says about the importance of commemorating the centenary of the First World War and the sacrifice of a generation who gave their lives for our freedom. I also welcome the references to the association agreements signed with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
I must congratulate the Government on their chutzpah. It is an extraordinary feat to claim that a 26-2 defeat and isolation is both a triumph and a strength. The results might have pleased those in the Conservative Party who favour a Brexit but they were greeted with dismay by business, trade unionists and all those who understand that the future success of our country and our place in the world depend on being part of a reformed European Union. The Prime Minister suggested that by pushing the Council to vote on Friday, he was defending a deeply held principle. I suggest that he was merely trying to defend the reputation of his party and maintain its unity.
The Prime Minister ended up with the candidate who he said would be a disaster for Britain but it could have been so different. A few weeks ago, we had a European Council divided about the presidency of the Commission; last week, we ended up with a European Council united against the Prime Minister. Personality politics might work well in the popular press or among the populists who are peddling fear in our country but they patently do not work among European leaders. They were the ones who might have been won round by discussion and diplomacy, rather than shouting and foot stamping. I understand that at the start of the process Chancellor Merkel said that the agenda of the next European Commission “can be handled by” Juncker,
“but also by many others … At the end, there will be a fairly broad tableau of names on the table”.
I would be grateful if the Leader could explain how the Government think that we reached a situation in which 26 European leaders coalesced around one name.
Personal attacks and threats followed by splendid isolation are a testament to weakness and a lack of tactics rather than strength, while insults such as the one from the Health Secretary, who called the other European leaders cowards, are simply rude. As Chancellor Merkel said in Sweden:
“Threats are not part and parcel of”,
the European spirit and,
“this is not part of the way in which we usually proceed”.
It was not too late to rethink tactics and tone at that stage, but no efforts to change were made. Does the noble Lord agree that leaving the EPP Group nine years ago and the very recent decision by the European conservatives to invite the German AfD, a right-wing opponent of Chancellor Merkel’s CDU, to join their group in the European Parliament were tactics for short-term political gain rather than being in the interests of either his party or our country?
This morning, I had wide-ranging discussions with members of the governing party in Italy and over the weekend I spoke to other European colleagues. It is clear that reform of the European Union is needed and desired by our partners. The Prime Minister suggests that it is only his conviction that Europe needs to change. I assure noble Lords that that conviction is widely shared and has been reinforced throughout the European Union as a consequence of the results of the EU elections. My party also wants reform but the difference between us and the Prime Minister is that we want it for the sake of our nation, while his major preoccupation is to heal the divisions within his party.
I fear that the Prime Minister is trying to appease those in his party who want to leave the EU. They cheered his lack of support because they do not want reform; they just want exit and real isolation. Mr Cameron’s erstwhile friend, the Polish Foreign Minister, was undoubtedly speaking for many when he said in relation to the Prime Minister and his Back-Benchers:
“He is not interested. He does not get it … his whole strategy of feeding them scraps in order to satisfy them is … turning against him …. he ceded the field to those that are now embarrassing him”.
The threat of exit is clearly real but I wonder whether the Leader believes that this somehow increases our influence in Europe. Do guns to the head represent a real strategy that will deliver the reforms which we all desire?
Our membership of the EU is important for jobs and business, as well as strategic action on everything from climate change to terrorism. Yes, we need to ensure reform of the budget, of transitional controls for immigration and of benefits. I am sure that working together with our partners we can secure reforms. Is the Government’s real problem not the fact that there is a gap between what the Conservative’s Brexit faction—or perhaps I should say the Conservative majority—is demanding and what sensible European reform amounts to?
Reform is possible through constructive discussion, but those discussions need to take place in the Council and at all levels in the European Commission, not just within the college. I would be grateful if the Leader could tell the House what plans there are to ensure that we have more Brits working at senior level in the Commission at this crucial time and also at more junior levels, who will feed through to higher levels in due course.
Reforms require successful negotiation, and I fear that the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills have been proved to be sorely lacking and that his strategy is in tatters. The gulf between the demands of those in the noble Lord’s party who want to leave the European Union and what the Prime Minister can negotiate grows ever wider. As the gulf widens, so the drift towards exit will loom larger. That would be disastrous for the future prosperity of our country.
G7
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader for repeating the Statement, and the noble Baroness the Chief Whip for agreeing to take this short exchange today rather than yesterday. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful for this flexibility.
Just one week after the anniversary of D-day, I take this opportunity to pay tribute on behalf of my Benches to all those involved in the commemorations, especially the veterans, who are truly extraordinary. Their stories were deeply moving, their fortitude a lesson to us all, and we owe a great debt of gratitude to them, and to the thousands who lost their lives, for their courage in fighting against fascism to safeguard the freedoms which we enjoy but too often take for granted. They were remarkable people who risked, and too often gave, their lives for our country. It is now our duty to ensure that we continue to honour them and their memories so that our children, our children’s children and future generations know about the service and sacrifice of those who went before us.
Before turning to the G7, let me echo the comments made by the Leader’s right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the European Commission President. The message from the European elections was clear: we need reform in Europe, and we need people in top jobs in Europe willing and able to pursue that agenda. The appointments of a new Commission and President now provide a vital opportunity to pursue this much needed European reform, which must be seized and not squandered. The Prime Minister is right to acknowledge that, but he might have had more influence if the discussions had been less personalised and more diplomatic. The negotiations might also have been easier if his colleagues in the European Parliament had not joined forces with parties that hold dubious views, including some which sat with UKIP in the previous Parliament. I still hope that the Prime Minister will make the necessary progress in the appointment of that key post.
The central issues of the G7 communiqué were the global economy, international development, climate change and Ukraine, and I will briefly address each. On the global economy, trade is a key engine for achieving that priority. It is important to work to reduce trade barriers while respecting states’ rights to regulate, which is why we support the EU-US trade agreement. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with EU leaders and President Obama on whether the TTIP negotiations are on track and when they are likely to be completed? Can the Minister reassure the House that there will be no impact on our public services, and in particular on the NHS? Can the noble Lord say what specific discussions have been held to ensure that the NHS will be excluded from any future agreement?
On tax and transparency, I trust that the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that the bold promises of the Lough Erne declaration are not watered down in practice. Last year we welcomed the OECD’s work to tackle tax avoidance and it was promised that developing countries would be part of that process. Can the Leader assure the House that will be the case going forward?
We support the conclusions on international development, and recognise and welcome the actions that have been taken by the Government. However, we still look forward to the Government bringing forward a Bill to enshrine the 0.7% aid target and would give that measure our strongest support.
Climate change is an enormous threat to our planet and is inextricably linked to many of the problems faced by the world, including poverty and migration. The agreement of a new international framework for tackling climate change is hugely important, and the G7 statement on that is very welcome. Britain and the EU can play a leading role in achieving a deal. One of the keys to success in Paris in 2015 will be to make good on the promise of climate finance made in Copenhagen. Can the noble Lord inform the House of when the UK will make money available for that and assure us that the Government are working to secure timely contributions from the other G7 members?
Finally, on Ukraine, following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, it was right for G7 countries to boycott this year’s G8 summit, which would have taken place in Sochi. This crisis has been the West’s most serious confrontation with Russia since the end of the Cold War, and there had to be consequences for Russia’s actions.
Secondly, we welcome the swearing-in of President Poroshenko and his first act of offering political concessions to the Russian-speaking east. I also join the Leader in welcoming the initial engagement between President Putin and President Poroshenko. Following the Ukrainian President’s commitment to sign an association agreement with the EU, has the Prime Minister received any assurances from President Putin in his bilateral meeting that there would be no further Russian aggression in response to that action?
Thirdly, we see the continuing volatile situation in eastern Ukraine and the rising violence in south-eastern Ukraine with growing concern. During the Prime Minister’s conversations with President Putin, did he seek assurances that Russia will accelerate its withdrawal of troops from the border with Ukraine and stop the flow of weapons and pro-Russian insurgents into the country? This G7 meeting was a demonstration of the unity of international action. It was right for the G7 to call for a de-escalation of the situation, the need to work towards a diplomatic solution and continuing to maintain the pressure on Russia. In taking that action the Government have our full support.
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on their speeches. They have continued the tradition of excellence by those moving and seconding the humble Address, and they were, if I may say so, a very fine choice by the noble Lord the Leader.
I am tempted to call the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, my noble friend, because he has done and said so many things over the years with which I have agreed, from seatbelts to sex—that is to say, same-sex marriage—but I recognise that by doing so I might be damaging both his and my reputation, and it would certainly not help his advancement.
The world will be grateful to him for the campaign he introduced on HIV/AIDS, when Secretary of State for Health, to provide information and reduce stigma, a cause which he continues to champion. In this House, he has always been willing to speak up for what he believes to be right, irrespective of party line: for example, on Leveson. I am not too sure that Baroness Thatcher would have approved of this independence of mind. In his diaries, he refers to a conversation on the then Mrs Thatcher’s reaction to the prospect of a change to the poll tax legislation:
“If this takes place then we will have to change the House of Lords. She particularly does not like the position where former Conservative ministers transfer to the House of Lords and then take on a new independence”.
Another diary entry reads:
“We have been defeated in the Lords on football identity cards, leading Mrs Thatcher to ask more or less rhetorically: ‘What’s happened to all those peers I have made?’”.
I guess that Mr Cameron might well be saying the same. However, his response is usually practical not rhetorical in that he just creates a few more Peers. In 2008 the noble Lord published a book entitled A Political Suicide: The Conservatives’ Voyage into the Wilderness—a great read if I might say so. I was wondering whether the next book might be a sequel, but clearly it is not.
The up-and-coming noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, has a distinguished record as a local and county councillor in Suffolk and brought that experience to the Lords. She was probably glad not to be fighting a Lib Dem seat in the recent council elections. She is a board member of Wings of Hope—not, I should add, an organisation that is looking to save her party from oblivion but one with the rather more laudable aim of a world in which every child has the right to a free education. In 2008, the noble Baroness stood against Lembit Öpik to be Lib Dem president, and won. I remember thinking that was an excellent step forward for her party, and indeed it was. I also warm to the noble Baroness for having a blog called “Because Baronesses are People Too”. Indeed, we are.
It is always an honour and a privilege to speak at the beginning of the debate on the gracious Speech, but I have a confession to make: I would so much prefer to be doing it from other side of the Chamber. This is not a matter of personal ambition; it is a desire for power to bring about the changes that our country and people need and deserve. We on these Benches will be doing everything possible to ensure that this time next year I will be leaning on that Dispatch Box.
Shortly before the Recess, the Benches opposite were beginning to get overconfident, but I think that last month’s elections may have restored a sense of reality and recognition of the challenges that we all face; especially in terms of the trust that must be restored in politics and our political system. Despite the impression given by the media, we should not forget that although UKIP won 27% of the vote it had the support of only 9% of the electorate, and while I respect those who exercised their democratic right to vote for UKIP I do not respect that party’s simplistic policies, which offer little more than a return to some rose-tinted past that did not exist.
William E Simon was perhaps wise when he said:
“Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don’t vote”.
The fact that 64% of our electors did not see the point of voting and that some of those who put their cross on the ballot paper did so in the spirit of “a plague on all your houses” shows that we as national politicians have failed in many ways. We have failed to listen and to take action to address concerns. We have overpromised and underdelivered, and our parties have failed to respond to the myriad changes that we face. Too many people simply do not think that they have a voice. That is not so much in places such as London and the other great cities, such as Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Exeter, Norwich and Sunderland—places where most people rejected UKIP outright—but in smaller market and coastal towns where people are crying out for help in a fast-changing world that they feel has been foisted upon them and that they can do nothing to stop. They think that those who run our country live on a different planet and they warm to UKIP’s easy but false answers to complex problems.
The Hansard Society’s 2014 Audit of Political Engagement found that 67% of the people polled said that politicians,
“don’t understand the daily lives of people like me”.
That is why those of us engaged in politics have to do more to connect with people and make meaningful offers in terms of policies. That is why it is crucial for national government, local government and businesses of all types and at all levels to work together to help revive struggling economies, to give people in our country hope for the future and to ensure that nobody gets left behind. Politics should be about hope, not fear.
This is a speech that in many ways should not have been; I have no doubt that it would not have been but for the gerrymandering of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Instead, while the country was aching for change and an election, for months we had days of debates without legislation and days of holidays when we should have been holding the Government to account. We cannot forget earlier legislation whose impact is now being felt and that has actually made things worse for many people: for example, the bedroom tax—as the noble Lord, Lord Freud, often calls it—the scope of which has now widened with both sides of the coalition equally culpable. I look forward to being part of a Government who will abolish what has ultimately been a pernicious attack on vulnerable people.
That impact is made worse by the housing crisis affecting millions in our country, including young people who have no prospect of buying a home and who should pay fair rents and not be exploited by rogue landlords and letting agents. Where is the legislation to address this? The fundamental problem is the lack of housing stock. The Bill that will enable a garden city to be built at Ebbsfleet is welcome, but the building of 15,000 new homes is a pitiful response to the crisis, so where is the legislation that would realise the aspirations of thousands of people who want and need a home?
The 2012-13 Session understandably had a huge hole in it because of the House of Lords Bill. That was bad political management, but last year we suffered from bad business management. Sometimes, a sitting after 10 pm was followed by days with little or no business. I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House for an assurance that there will be no repeat of the disgraceful handling of the European Union (Referendum) Bill—government legislation masquerading as a Private Member’s Bill—when party politics took precedence over procedure.
I trust that the Bills mentioned today will be well drafted and complete. It has been a feature of this Government that Bills begin their legislative process while consultations are still under way and that sometimes agreements on policy have not been reached by the coalition partners. That begs the question: when will the “conscious uncoupling” end in divorce? The joyful union in the sunshine seems a lifetime away, since when we have had bickering followed by more upfront disputes. One has to wonder when the now joyless relationship will finally break down so that each partner can blame the other for unfulfilled promises before the phoney war ends and the real election campaign begins in earnest.
Goodness knows what changes we will see over the coming year in this Chamber, let alone the country. Surely the Prime Minister cannot be intending to create yet more Peers to further swell the Benches opposite in order to rubber-stamp his programme? This harms not only the Government’s reputation but the reputation of the whole House. Following the local and European election results, the coalition must have ditched at last its objective of creating a second Chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election. More Lib Dem Peers? I think not. Indeed, if there are any more Iagos with plots of deep malice on their Benches, we might see their numbers diminish.
Like the noble Baroness, we were sad in many ways to see the departure of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, from the Front Bench, but are delighted that he became chair of the Youth Justice Board, which, thanks to the efforts of Cross-Bench and Labour Peers, was saved from abolition at the hands of some unwise, unthinking Minister.
There has been much discussion about the number of Bills mentioned in the gracious Speech. The real question should be whether these Bills address the real challenges before our country. One has to wonder whether the speech had been finalised before the Government knew the results of the elections on 22 May. We will never know, but it really does not answer the big questions that we all faced on the doorstep about insecurity, unfairness and instability.
The media briefings have made the reduction in the use of plastic bags a key measure—all very important, but the fact that plastic bags take centre stage when there is no mention of the NHS and social care says it all about the coalition’s priorities for our country. Where is the Bill to put right the mistakes made in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which has made a complete shambles of the NHS at a time when it is facing the worst crisis in its history? We need more than the measures to limit excessive redundancy payments across the public sector, which are a direct consequence of that wasteful £3 billion restructuring of our health service. Could the noble Lord the Leader confirm that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny of any health regulation Bill?
We welcome the small business Bill, which is a direct response to Labour’s policies but does not go far enough. The same can be said of legislation to improve the fairness of contracts for low-paid workers and legislation to impose higher penalties on employers who fail to pay their staff the minimum wage—again very welcome, but these are only part of the package we have advocated to ensure that work pays and workers are not exploited.
We strongly support the introduction of the modern slavery Bill and are proud of the long-term work and advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, which was the catalyst for the Bill.
The re-announcements on childcare are to be welcomed, as they were when they were first announced, but if the Government really believe that investment in childcare is critical, why will the measures not be introduced until 2015? Parents need improved childcare now.
Where is the Bill on forestry that was promised after the excellent report by the independent panel, published two years ago? The report provided a blueprint for safeguarding the future of our public forests and the Government welcomed the recommendations, promising to bring forward the necessary legislation.
As the Government take forward their programme, I hope that Ministers will take more care in assessing the impact of legislation: for example, on people’s ability to feed their families. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for visiting a food bank. He said:
“There was a systematic approach to uncovering the deeper problems which had brought people to the point where they simply did not have enough money to buy adequate food”.
One family every 35 seconds is now receiving a food parcel, and the Scottish Parliament’s recent report highlighted the fact that a growing number of people who use food banks are low-paid. So where is the Bill that will address these problems?
Food banks are one very visible sign of the inequalities now growing in our society, where wealth is increasingly accumulated by the few at the top. The gracious Speech says:
“My Government will continue to … build a fairer society”.
However, I would ask: when will they begin to build a fairer society? The Governor of the Bank of England said last week that inequality is “demonstrably” growing and risks undermining the basic social contract of fairness. So where are the measures to ensure that the “sense of society” mentioned by Mr Carney is restored?
Last week Save the Children published an excellent report, A Fair Start for Every Child, which examines the underlying drivers of poverty such as low wages, high prices and pressure on social security. It concludes that there is a very real risk as the economy moves into recovery that the poorest children will be left behind. Will the measures mentioned today ensure that these children are taken out of poverty? How will the Government bring about the bold and radical changes necessary to transform these children’s lives?
Over the coming year, the general election aside, the most important political event in our country will be the referendum in Scotland. I am a passionate believer in the union, and fervently hope that on 18 September the people of Scotland will confirm that they are too. Proposals for the future of devolution in Scotland in the event of a no vote have now been put forward by all the major political parties, including my own. More powers for the Scottish Parliament are guaranteed in the event of a no vote. I hope that the Scottish people choose to continue with the best of both worlds: a strong Scottish Parliament backed up by the strength and security of the United Kingdom.
Next Thursday will see the beginning of the World Cup, when I am sure that all Members of this House, including our Scottish colleagues, will be backing our boys. On this side of the House, we hope and believe that England could go far, contrary to the Home Office’s pessimistic assessment, which was recently flushed out by my noble friend Lord Rosser. To win games they have to be fit and work as a team in order to meet the challenges of their competitors.
Likewise in the globalised world of the 21st century, where competition from the developing and the developed world is getting stronger, each and every part of our country needs to be fit, with economic growth and sustainable quality jobs, and each and every member of our society needs to have the opportunity to realise their potential for their own well-being and that of their community. It is clear from the recent election results that too many people do not feel a sense of personal or community well-being; they feel insecure, ill equipped to deal with change, and a deep sense of unfairness. With this Queen’s Speech the Government had an opportunity to respond to some of these challenges, but I fear that that they have failed to do so.
We on these Benches look forward to the year ahead, when we will scrutinise the legislative programme and seek to amend where necessary and appropriate. We will do so in the knowledge that by this time next year the people of this country will have had the opportunity not just to give a verdict on this Government but to change the direction of our country. I hope that through our work in this Chamber and outside, all noble Lords from all parties and none will help to ensure that more of our citizens have greater trust in politicians and their ability to bring about change that is relevant to, and will improve, their lives. In this way they might feel that it is important for them to exercise their democratic right to vote. I certainly hope so. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
House of Lords: Questions and Correspondence
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, one decision that I have taken recently, which I hope my noble friend and other noble Lords will support, is that a new electronic system for dealing with Questions for Written Answer is to be introduced. I have said that, so far as this House is concerned, Ministers will continue to send hard copies to Members and sign them personally. That is important because it speaks to the need for accountability of Ministers in our House. That is right and I am sure that all noble Lords here will support it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for all that he said and I welcome the innovations. However, as many noble Lords have said, it is not just the speed but the substance of the Answers that is important. I, too, have an example in front of me: a direct Question to which I received not a direct Answer but a bland statement of policy. It is essential that we have direct Answers in order to hold the Government to account. However, as the noble Lord the Leader will know, I am concerned about the impact of long recesses on our ability to hold the Government to account, including by the tabling of Written Questions. With a 10-week Summer Recess, the tabling of Written Questions on two days is simply not adequate, and I ask the Leader what he is doing to address that issue.
European Council and Nuclear Security Summit
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister. In relation to the formal substance of the EU summit and conclusions, I welcome the steps that were agreed on efforts to complete the internal energy market, to improve the energy flow across the continent and to strengthen EU tax rules on the exchange of information.
On climate change, I further urge the Government, given their previous leadership on the issue, to push the EU to set out its climate priorities before the UN Climate Summit in September.
On discussions regarding the vote of the UN Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka today, could the noble Lord set out what action the Government have taken in recent weeks—and, indeed, in these final days and hours—to secure the support of other states’ council members for this resolution? This matter requires urgency. I would be grateful if the noble Lord gave some idea of the timescale for the international and independent investigation into alleged war crimes.
The main substance of the Statement is on Ukraine. This House is united in outrage at Russia’s annexation of Crimea, an action in direct violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and a breach of international law. Russia’s actions have created the most significant security threat on the European continent in decades. This fear has been fuelled by the ever more aggressive rhetoric of Russia in the past few weeks. Like my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition, I praise the measured response shown so far by the Ukrainian authorities to this act of aggression. I also want to express support for the shared goals set out at last week’s EU Council meeting of isolating Russia for its actions and reassuring our allies and partners in that region.
I shall take the specific outcomes in turn: first, I welcome the signing of the political chapters of the association agreement between the EU and the Ukrainian Government. It was this strengthening of co-operation with the EU, spurned by former President Victor Yanukovych in November, which sparked the current crisis. So it is of course right that the EU should continue to make clear that these agreements are not a zero-sum game between the EU and Russia. It is essential that this agreement, which potentially opens up nearly €500 million-worth of trade benefits to Ukraine, is taken forward. It is also right that the EU now pushes ahead with similar pacts for Moldova and Georgia.
Secondly, it is vital that the international community imposes real costs on President Putin and his key supporters. For this reason, we welcome the agreement at the EU summit on extending the list of individuals targeted by visa bans and asset freezes. Yet, unlike Washington, the EU list avoided sanctions being placed on senior Kremlin figures. Can I therefore ask the Leader to explain the reasons behind this and whether the names of any senior Kremlin figures were put forward for consideration before the final agreement and publication of the EU list?
Thirdly, given that the United States has added sanctions on the bank Rossiya and indicated the economic sectors that may be targeted as part of its stage 3 approach, can the Leader provide details of what any EU measures could involve and to which sectors they would apply?
On the meeting of the G7 and the EU, Labour urged stronger action by the G8. These Benches therefore welcome the decision taken by members of the G7 to suspend their 16-year collaboration with Russia in the G8 group and the decision not to attend the planned G8 summit in Sochi in June. It is also welcome that, this week, the Russian Foreign Minister held talks with his Ukrainian counterpart for the first time since Russia’s move into Crimea. What steps are being taken to ensure that such dialogue continues between Ukraine and Russia in the weeks ahead?
Finally, given that the Prime Minister said this week that Britain and its NATO allies would help bolster the defences of the alliance’s Baltic members which have Russian minorities, can the Leader tell the House what the nature of any such UK contribution would be?
The actions of the whole international community should be designed to strengthen Ukraine’s sovereignty and democratic transition, to impose real costs on the Government of President Vladimir Putin, and to bring all sides together in a meaningful dialogue to de-escalate the situation and find a political solution. As we have said throughout this crisis, in taking this action the Government will have our full support.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I know that the noble Lord is often ready to blame the EU for a whole range of matters. However, it is hard to argue in this case that the situation that has developed, with the aggression shown by Russia and its breaking of international treaties freely entered into in the past, can be laid at the door of the EU.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was not in the Chamber for the Statement that was given by the Minister at the beginning. It is therefore a bit rich that he should come in.
Reading Clerk
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)
My Lords, we often talk in this House of the debt we owe to the staff. Today we have the opportunity to pay tribute to one who served us with great distinction for more than 38 years, Rhodri Walters—or perhaps I should say, using that well known phrase from our Letters Patent, our trusty and well beloved Dr Rhodri Havard Walters. Over those 38 years Rhodri served the House in many senior roles, including as private secretary to the Viscount Whitelaw; as Establishment Officer—now less elegantly known as Director of Human Resources; and as Clerk of Committees. He has also overseen the recruitment and development of many of the younger clerks in this House, a task which I know he much enjoyed. But he is perhaps best known to most of us as the Reading Clerk who so beautifully read out our punctuation-free Letters Patent as we were each introduced to the House. It was in this guise that he was described by a parliamentary sketch writer as the,
“master of ceremonies … A figure almost from Dickens. With his wig and spectacles and parchment voice, he was the learned town mouse, nose twitching as he waited”.
Dickensian, perhaps, but how reassuring to us as we stood there nervously.
Beyond the House, Rhodri has many interests, including rowing, skiing—indeed, he is on the slopes of St Anton as we speak—singing, gardening and his native Wales, where he has a house at which he will now be able to spend more time. I know the whole House will want to join me in thanking him for his long and loyal service and in wishing him a very happy retirement.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I thank and pay tribute to Rhodri Walters for his excellent and indefatigable work throughout his career communicating the work of Parliament to a wider audience. He has led in the delivery of learning materials for the parliamentary studies module, an innovative educational partnership between the Houses of Parliament and universities which was launched in 2012. As many noble Lords will know, he was the author, together with Sir Robert Rogers, of How Parliament Works, a uniquely authoritative yet accessible account of how Parliament works. The seventh edition, I can tell noble Lords, will be available in all good bookshops soon. The sixth edition, labelled a “a rare treat” by one commentator, was described by Andrew Marr as,
“clear, elegant, invaluable, bang up-to-date and full of dry wit”.
I can think of no better way of describing one of its authors, Rhodri Walters, and I wish him well in his retirement.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats I wish to associate myself with the words of the Leader of the House and of the Leader of the Opposition in thanking Rhodri Walters for his long and distinguished service to the House, not just as Reading Clerk but in the many offices that he held in the House.
As the Leader of the House said, we have all become very familiar with Rhodri Walters reading out the Letters Patent. After a bit of research, I discovered that I was possibly the first Life Peer whose Letters Patent he read out when I was introduced in November 2007. I once asked him whether he could do that blindfolded after all the times he had done it. He replied that he probably could but would never dare try.
We should also recognise the many different roles that the Reading Clerk plays. One of Rhodri’s roles was as Clerk of the Overseas Office, where he helped the first two Lord Speakers build their roles as the House’s ambassadors overseas. He also helped the House to deepen its ties with Commonwealth Parliaments and to forge new links elsewhere, most notably with Russia, having organised a very successful visit to Westminster of the President of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation.
Rhodri Walters was also instrumental in the House’s engagement with Parliaments of European Union member states, culminating in organising a very successful meeting of the Association of European Senates last year, when this House played host to the Speakers of 15 European upper Chambers.
Reference has also been made to Rhodri’s recreation. I am told by a former member of his staff—it is right to say that those who worked for him held him in highest regard—that he was able to jump, both feet together, from a floor on to a table. For the past six and a half years, his feet were very firmly under the table except when he was standing up reading. For his loyal service we are very grateful and we wish him well in his retirement.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warsi
I can inform the House that officials provide the same level of support and the same information to Ministers from both coalition parties.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
It is quite difficult when there is no Liberal Democrat Minister from the Foreign Office. I know that there is a Liberal Democrat Whip. I know that we wish to move on, but I think that many people in the Chamber are concerned about this constitutional aspect because it pertains not only to today, it has future relevance as we move towards the end of this Parliament. Noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench opposite have not been able to see the Liberal Democrat Members shaking their heads. It is clear from these Benches that there is a difference of opinion between the two parties in the coalition. Perhaps it is something that could be clarified later, but I think that we are not in a happy constitutional position on this issue.
Nelson Mandela
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real privilege to lead my Benches in paying tribute to the most extraordinary man, Nelson Mandela, a humble giant with indomitable courage who provided a moral compass for his country, his continent and our world. Today we celebrate his life but, like the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I send our condolences to the family and friends of Nelson Mandela.
There are few people of whom it can truly be said that their life had an impact on the world, but such was the life of this brave man who, through oppression, understood that evil must never be accommodated or accepted; rather, it must be resisted and overcome. His belief in democracy and a free society was so strong that he was prepared to die for it. Since the announcement of his death, and, indeed, since he guided the South African people to freedom and democracy, the world has rightly revered Mandela, whose dignity, compassion, generosity and power of forgiveness knew no bounds. However, in remembering the peace and reconciliation which became a model for the world, we should not forget the struggle which went before, when he was fighting for the liberation of his people who lived with the evil of apartheid, which crushed “non-violent struggle” with “naked force”. As he said, however, he was fighting not people but principles. In doing so, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday:
“He faced the insult of being labelled a terrorist”.
The struggle led to 27 dark years in jail, 18 of them under the brutal regime of Robben Island, but a place where thanks to his leadership there was comradeship and a thirst for education, football for fitness and team building, and the vision of a new South Africa was born.
It is almost beyond belief that when free from prison at the age of 71, he embraced the colossal task of building a society in which all South Africans, both black and white, would be able to walk tall, without fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity—a rainbow nation at peace with itself in the world. The way in which he did this, with magnanimity, love and understanding of his fellow human beings, as well as with idealism and courage, seemed to show the world that love is stronger than hate and that the human spirit can triumph over inhumanity.
There are many behind me who are far, far better qualified than me to speak about Nelson Mandela. I am very proud of their actions, but also of my party’s relationship with the ANC in exile, its support for the Anti-Apartheid Movement and its support for political activists and their families through international defence and aid. My noble friend Lord Joffe was a defence lawyer at the Rivonia trial, and who, the accused said after the trial,
“has understood and accepted that, above all else, we would not compromise our belief or consciences for legal advantage and in that understanding he has advised us along a course which we fully believe to have been politically correct, and legally as well”.
My noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, who cannot be in his place today, was the energetic chair of the Anti-Apartheid Movement for 20 years and was instrumental in increasing its support and focusing its activities in the 1980s, leading the campaign against the Government’s refusal to impose sanctions against South Africa and helping to bring about the end of apartheid.
My noble friend Lady Kinnock was a tireless fundraiser and supporter of the families of political prisoners, as well as a friend to many in exile. My noble friend Lord Healey introduced Mandela to Hugh Gaitskell in 1962, and later visited him in his cell on Robben Island. My noble friend Lord Boateng was high commissioner in South Africa, which must have been a joy after a lifetime campaigning for justice. Many of my noble friends who worked in trade unions did everything possible to show solidarity with the oppressed workers in South Africa. Other noble friends worked with their churches to bring about change and I know that the vast majority of my colleagues were members of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and that makes me proud.
My noble friend Lord Kinnock, when leader of the Opposition in the 1980s, was unwavering in his support for Nelson Mandela and the struggle against apartheid. It was when I worked for my noble friend that I had the honour of meeting this legend, when I made and served him tea. As for so many noble Lords, the Anti-Apartheid Movement was part of my political life—indeed, my family’s life: the marches and demonstrations, latterly with children in pushchairs, the careful weekly shop to ensure that nothing from South Africa found its way into the shopping basket—and I played a small part in organising the 1988 Mandela 70th birthday concert at Wembley.
It was therefore the most enormous pleasure and privilege to shake his hand when he came to meet my noble friend and the shadow Cabinet. I was reminded by Richard Caborn, who in 1990 was an MP and treasurer of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, that at the time Mandela was still deemed by Parliament to be a terrorist and he was unable to book a Committee Room for a meeting with MPs.
Nelson Mandela was not a saint, he was an exceptional human being who started life in a hut and, like 80% of his fellow South Africans, suffered oppression because of the colour of his skin. His thirst for justice was the catalyst for his training as a lawyer; his hunger for freedom and his passion for equality of opportunity drove him to fight against the evil of apartheid; his empathy and personality enabled him to work with President FW de Klerk, to bring democracy to South Africa; his belief in the power of peace and reconciliation enabled him to lead the citizens of his country to the birth of a new South Africa.
On Robben Island, the prisoners had a copy of the complete works of Shakespeare, which they called the Bible. Each prisoner marked their favourite passage. Mandela’s was from “Julius Caesar”:
“Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come”.
It is clear that Nelson Mandela died only once. There are many apposite quotations from Shakespeare, but I will end with Ben Jonson’s words about Shakespeare, which sum up the truly great but humble and compassionate Mandela. His genius,
“was not of an age, but for all time”.
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and Philippines
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the other place.
Our thoughts are with the people of the Philippines as they struggle to deal with the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan. More than 12 million people have been affected by the typhoon—more than 4 million of them children. Nearly 3 million have lost their homes, and more than 4,000 are believed to have lost their lives, including a number of British citizens. The pictures we have seen are of terrible devastation. As so often happens when disaster strikes anywhere in the world, the British people have reacted with remarkable compassion and generosity. I am sure that, like me, this House is proud of the way in which our nation has responded. So far £35 million has been donated by the British public through the Disasters Emergency Committee.
I also pass on thanks from these Benches to our forces on HMS “Daring” and HMS “Illustrious” for the work that they are doing to help with disaster relief. I commend the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development in providing £50 million in aid. We need to see the same from other countries, as the UN appeal has only a quarter of the funds it needs. Can I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House what actions the Government are taking to encourage other countries to commit and free up resources as quickly as possible to the Philippines?
It is also the case that serious damage sustained to airports, seaports and roads continue to present major logistical challenges for the emergency response. Can I ask the Leader of the House what steps are being taken to ensure that humanitarian relief is reaching those in very remote and isolated areas who have been worst affected by the typhoon?
Turning to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, I welcome the conclusions of the communiqué on development, global threats and challenges, and programmes promoting Commonwealth collaboration. I am pleased that Britain was steadfast in its attitude towards Zimbabwe's membership of the Commonwealth and I back what the Prime Minister had to say about trade. Indeed, the welcome orders for the airbus are a shining example of the way in which jobs and trade benefit from European co-operation. The Commonwealth is—and, we believe, should remain—a vital institution that helps to protect the interests and promote the values of its united and diverse membership. At its best, the Commonwealth summit gathers together 53 countries seeking to promote common values, including democracy, accountability, the rule of law and human rights.
This House is united in its abhorrence of terrorism and in recognising that what happened in Sri Lanka, particularly towards the end of the conflict in 2009 when tens of thousands of innocent civilians were murdered, totally failed the test of those values. It was for that reason, at the 2009 Commonwealth summit, that the last Labour Government blocked the plan for Sri Lanka to host the summit in 2011. As the current Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:
“The UK made clear … during the 2009 CHOGM … that we would be unable to support Sri Lanka’s bid to host in 2011”.
Delaying the hosting of the summit until 2013 was intended to allow time for the Sri Lankan Government to show progress on human rights, but that has not happened. Indeed, the situation has got worse, not better. When he attended the summit in 2011, the Prime Minister could have acted precisely as the Labour Government had done in 2009.
I should like to put one or two questions to the noble Lord the Leader. First, the Deputy Prime Minister said in May to the other place that,
“if the Sri Lankan Government continue to ignore their international commitments in the lead up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, of course there will be consequences”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/13; col. 634.]
Can the Leader tell the House what those consequences were?
Secondly, at the summit on Friday, the Prime Minister called for the Sri Lankan Government to initiate, by March, an independent inquiry into allegations of war crimes. However, by Sunday, President Rajapaksa had already appeared to reject this. The UN human rights commissioner called two years ago for an internationally led inquiry and we have supported that call. Is not the right thing to do to commit now to build the international support necessary for that internationally led inquiry?
Thirdly, after this summit, President Rajapaksa will be chair of the Commonwealth for the next two years, and that includes attending the Commonwealth Games. Can the Leader say whether during the summit the Prime Minister had any discussions with other countries about whether the President was an appropriate person to play that role?
Finally, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of India decided not to attend the summit. In explaining his decision, Prime Minister Harper said:
“In the past two years we have ... seen ... a considerable worsening of the situation”.
While I naturally accept the good intentions of the Prime Minister, I wonder whether Prime Minister Harper and Prime Minister Singh were not right to believe that the attendance of Heads of Government at the CHOGM would not achieve any improvement or prospects for improvement in human rights within Sri Lanka.
The legacy of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka is in contradiction to the good traditions of the Commonwealth. We believe that we cannot let the matter rest. Britain must do what it can to ensure that the truth emerges about the crimes that were committed so that there can be justice for those who have suffered so much. When the Government act to make that happen, we will support them.
EU Council
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the other place. I start by sending deepest condolences from these Benches to the families of the people who have died during the storm conditions in the past 24 hours. I also join him in thanking the emergency services for the work that they have done overnight to protect people and the work they are now doing to clear the debris. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could update the House on the 270,000 homes without power in south-west England, East Anglia and the Midlands, and if he could inform the House how long it is expected to take for the power to be restored.
On the European Statement, I join the Leader of the House in his support for the work of our intelligence services. It is vital, it keeps us safe, and by its very nature it goes unrecognised. I also join him in applauding the men and women who work for our services. On these Benches we support the summit’s statement on this issue. We can all understand the deep concerns that recent reports have caused in some European countries, especially Germany, so as well as providing that support for intelligence services it is right to ensure proper oversight of those activities.
I turn to the formal agenda of the summit. First, on trade, we welcome and support the conclusion of the Canada-EU trade deal and agree with the focus on the US-EU trade agreement. At the start of this year, a timetable for December 2014 was set to complete negotiations. Can the Leader set out any further developments on this challenging timetable and its feasibility? Does he agree that the possibility of this agreement is an important reminder, including to his Cabinet colleagues and much of his party, that a prosperous future for Britain lies inside, not outside, the European Union?
Secondly, we all agree that completion of the digital single market could have a significant impact on our prosperity. On numerous occasions the Government have stated their commitment to expand the single market in digital services. Will the Leader please tell us what has been achieved at this summit that was not achieved on previous occasions? Will he explain why the Prime Minister pushed for delay to the data protection directive, which would have enhanced citizens’ privacy across Europe?
On regulation, we will, naturally, look at the proposals of the task force. We agree with the need to restrain unnecessary regulation and welcome any progress on this, but we need to distinguish between good and bad regulation. Cutting bureaucracy and red tape can be welcome, where appropriate, but the Government’s emphasis on cutting red tape for business is in stark contrast to the red tape which they seek to impose on charities, the voluntary sector and unions in the transparency of lobbying Bill.
With regard to the task force’s report, does it really make sense to scrap new rules providing transparency about where the meat we eat has come from, in the light of the horsemeat scandal earlier this year? What about rules on agency work? They play an important role in deterring employers from using low-wage migrant labour to undercut local workers, but the task force says they should be watered down. What reassurance can the noble Lord provide that this will not simply mean cuts in wages and employment conditions—that is to say, a race to the bottom?
In relation to the tragedy at Lampedusa, I agree with the noble Lord that it is of the utmost importance to help stop the problems at their source and that the focus of our development assistance is on helping countries at risk of instability.
On broader economic policy, I note what the Prime Minister said at the end of his European summit press conference: that his priority was now to make sure it is a recovery for all. Does this represent an acknowledgment that, despite the welcome news on growth, millions of people still feel worse off because of the cost of living crisis? The Prime Minister also said after the summit that he wanted to help people “excluded from our economy”. That includes youth unemployment, mentioned in the communiqué. The shameful truth is that nearly one in five unemployed young people in Europe lives in Britain and those who are employed are often vastly overqualified. I am currently seeking a nine-month maternity cover for my PA/office manager and, of the tens of applications I have received, most are from people with a master’s degree and some have doctorates: many of them are working as unpaid interns. Something is wrong. The Government’s youth contract has recently been branded a failure by their own advisers.
What did the Prime Minister say at the summit about the changes needed in Britain when it comes to youth unemployment? For people struggling with their energy bills, seeing their wages falling, and for young people looking for work, is it not true that nothing is different after the summit than it was before? I fear that this European summit will feel like a lost opportunity for the citizens of the European Union, who share a common concern about growth, jobs and the cost of living.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My noble friend is right that the French approach things differently from us. When he talks of schadenfreude, the point to which I would refer him is the fact the Germans were there at the Prime Minister’s launch. Those who have, like my noble friend, studied the dynamic within Europe over a very long period of time would recognise the relationship between the UK and Germany. The work that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has put into trying to strengthen that relationship is an important part of helping to counterbalance some of the views held by other member states to which my noble friend refers.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
With the permission of the House, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to comment on the contrast between the search for deregulation in the business sector, which in many ways we welcome, and the imposition of bureaucracy and red tape on charities, trade unions and the voluntary sector in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill?
Lord Hill of Oareford
As the noble Baroness would expect me to say, these are different matters. I refute her point that the proposals on charities in the Bill would be as intrusive and destructive as the kinds of regulatory burdens that are operating in some ways within Europe, which we seek to remove. Like the noble Baroness, what one always wants is a proportionate approach in all areas.