Sudan: Civilian Population

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that there can be no winners in this situation, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both made clear, through direct interactions with the two parties and their generals, the importance of reaching an agreement—a ceasefire, in the first instance—to allow for humanitarian assistance and a sustainable peace between the two parties. We have seen some traction. We are working very closely with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and I praise its efforts in this regard. We have seen the first agreement, which provides protections though international humanitarian law. Unfortunately and tragically, we are still seeing attacks on humanitarian workers. We are working with key partners, including the Quad, on this, and I will continue to update your Lordships’ House accordingly.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alton raised the spectre of refugees—these people would be genuine asylum seekers coming from Sudan—potentially ending up on small boats. What discussions is the FCDO having with the Home Office about ensuring that people who are fleeing violence will be treated in a humane way in this country?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, our country has a long tradition of ensuring that we are a sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. I know that my colleagues in the Home Office are monitoring the situation very closely to ensure that we are able to respond effectively to this crisis.

Foreign Policy

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in this debate and begin the winding speeches, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is quite common to say, “I am delighted to speak after the noble Lord or the noble Baroness”, and sometimes that seems very formulaic. But on this occasion, it really has been a privilege to participate. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for bringing this debate to us. As so often, it is a shame that we are meeting in Grand Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. If we were there, we would get much more coverage, and the issues that have been raised could be explored much more fully.

This has been an excellent debate. One of the things we have found is that there are many areas of agreement across all four parts of the House. That begins to pay testament to the nature of the United Kingdom and our approach to foreign policy. Needless to say, I am not going to say from these Benches that I agree with everything that everybody has said—it would be a little strange if I did—and there are many things that I would like to amplify. One area in particular that I will focus on slightly more than people might expect is the Commonwealth.

The area that I am going to touch on, but perhaps not speak on as much as some people would expect, is defence. The reason for that is that my day job is as an academic. My professor of politics at Oxford used to say that I wrote good essays but that I did not necessarily answer the question, so I now look very closely at an exam question, and today it seemed to be about the implications for foreign policy. I noted that the Minister who was going to respond was the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, rather than the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, so I thought I would stick primarily to foreign policy, but I will touch on defence as well.

The starting point of the debate is about the UK’s changing role in the world. My immediate sense, when I started to draft notes ahead of the debate, was that we also needed to think about the changing role of the world around us, which many speeches have touched on, particularly the changing role of China. Perhaps slightly strangely, given that we are just over a year into the war in Ukraine, a lot of the discussion has been on China.

The subject that I thought might have caused a much longer debate was actually Brexit. I had a note of just one word: “Brexit”. My noble friend Lady Northover, in her excellent speech, pointed out that the previous integrated security and defence review had a Europe-shaped hole in it. Today’s debate did not pay very much attention to Europe, but that is probably right if we are rethinking our role. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, pointed out that we need to be strengthening our trading relationship with Europe. That is hugely important and something we need to focus on, as we must on security, but the questions of our role in the world are much greater than that.

I was minded to start from where the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, started: which foreign policy? He was looking for a foreign policy from the Government. It is quite easy to see why. I have lost count of how many Foreign Secretaries we have had since the 2016 referendum. For a number of years, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister appeared to set the frame of what the UK Government thought they were doing internationally. Are we going global? What is global Britain? Are we going to focus on trading relations with countries that we already had trading relations with while we were members of the European Union? It was never entirely clear. Going east of Suez sounded like something that might work very well in a Marvel cartoon, but were we going to do anything meaningful by doing so, as Boris Johnson wanted to do as Foreign Secretary? It was never entirely clear. I think we are beginning to get a sense of where the current Government are going, but there are some areas where we could help to steer the Government in certain directions.

It came as a surprise to me, just as it did to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, that we could agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said about partnership—that we absolutely need to be strengthening our bilateral and other relations. I was slightly worried, when he talked about process, that he might think that thickening up relations with our bilateral partners might fall into that, but he very clearly did not. It would be good to hear the Minister’s views on what we are doing to strengthen our bilateral relations with our European partners, as well as with the United States.

I did not entirely agree with the analyses of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, on some of the issues about the United States, particularly on whether we are having problems because Biden is President. We might be having some problems, but they are probably not entirely dependent on which particular president the Americans put it office, because we had a few problems with Donald Trump as well. There are clearly some issues, but they are ones where we need to work very hard.

One of the biggest issues associated with the ignominious departure from Afghanistan, which my noble friend mentioned, is the fact that it is very clear that, when the United States decided to act, the other NATO partners, including the United Kingdom, had to follow suit. Your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee, of which, at the time, I was a member, called on what was then Her Majesty’s Government to talk to the incoming Biden Administration and warn them of the dangers of withdrawal. All the Government said was, “We’re waiting to see what President Biden wants to do”. Surely the United Kingdom should not play a subservient role. We might want to have an appropriately humble role, but we should be talking to the United States and at least try to be equals in putting forward our views.

That takes me to the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, as we might have expected, talked about the Commonwealth, but we also heard about it in part from the noble Lords, Lord Popat and Lord Bilimoria. The Commonwealth is hugely important, and perhaps we underplay it. It is an area where the United Kingdom could and should have influence, but it is also one where we need to demonstrate a degree of humility. That is where I disagreed with the suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that somehow members of the Commonwealth or the global South have not been persuaded by the United Kingdom regarding Ukraine because of our issues on a whole set of social policies. It goes deeper than that. This is not about Commonwealth countries necessarily saying, “The West is too liberal” but perhaps, “We don’t want to be taken for granted”.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, suggested that there should be a state visit to India; I hope that His Majesty the King agreed. However, if we are doing that, it should not be with Ministers saying, “You need to be doing this and we want you to do that”. It should be acknowledged that our Head of State may also be Head of the Commonwealth but that King Charles is not the king of India and we no longer have the Raj. India will very shortly be the largest country in the world, if it is not already, and one that we need to speak to equals, not as a former colonial power. We need to recalibrate what we are doing to ensure that we are working with our Commonwealth partners as partners. That might help us to negotiate and persuade them in areas of the world where we have left a vacuum for China—a vacuum that has been talked about by many Peers.

In winding up, I will devote my final few seconds to the situation in China. As many Peers have said, it is not a country that is necessarily an enemy, although it has significant military power. We need to rethink our relationship while understanding that, as the noble Lord, Lord Popat, said, it is in part the IMF of Africa. We need to understand that if we in the West leave a vacuum, China will fill it, and in ways that do not require conditionality, as my noble friend Lady Tyler said. We need to rethink that, and I hope the Minister will agree with that and perhaps tell us where we can go in our relations with China under the refreshed integrated review.

Sudan

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, as it stand today, our priority has to be to continue with the programme of evacuations of British nationals. We completed an operation for those working for government, but there are more people to be saved from this situation. We are committed, as a priority, to trying to extend the 72-hour ceasefire, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, identified very clearly in his remarks. We may not succeed in that but it is our duty to try to extend it, and ideally even to turn it into something more lasting. The circumstances today are incredibly difficult, and it is unlikely that the kinds of concerns that the noble Baroness identified would be top of the list in these circumstances. However, there can be no doubt about the UK Government’s support for the ICC, or of our commitment to ensuring that people who engage in what are unarguably crimes against humanity are held to justice. We will do whatever we can to support that process but we have to maintain our sight on the clear priorities of today.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the Minister suggested that communications on the ground in Sudan were difficult. That is obviously right. However, one of the issues with the evacuation of people from Afghanistan two years ago was that family members in the UK and their MPs—and indeed Peers—could not connect with the Foreign Office; it was impossible to find out what was happening on the ground. Could the Minister reassure us that, this time round, the Foreign Office is better equipped to be able to respond at least to MPs talking about their constituents? Surely we ought to be able to do that.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point, and of course we have learned lessons from Afghanistan, as we strive to from every event that involves the UK and the FCDO, including on things such as evacuation planning, consular assistance, and so on. However, this is a very different situation, in the UK’s capabilities and the overall context, as well as the risk to British nationals. That is not to say that comparisons are invalid—they are absolutely valid—but it is a very different situation.

UN: Individuals Displaced by Conflict

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, there can be no doubt that there is an urgent humanitarian need to stop the small boat crossings. The UK Government have introduced legislation to prevent further loss of life by disrupting the business model of people-smuggling networks. Clearly, a system that enriches those smugglers and people traffickers is one that needs improvement. That is what we are trying to do. New approaches to these kinds of issues will raise new questions for the interpretation of international law. The UK will work openly and constructively to ensure that its new approach is fully compliant with international human rights, refugee and human trafficking protections. The legislation is about ending dangerous and unnecessary routes to the UK; it is not about denying protections to those in immediate, genuine need. We will continue to work with the UNHCR, not least through the financial contribution that I mentioned earlier, to ensure that those most in need can find sanctuary in the UK.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Do the Government believe that sufficient has been done to support those who were displaced in Afghanistan when we left so ignominiously in August 2021?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, the manner in which the situation in Afghanistan was allowed to change caused appalling humanitarian problems on a scope and scale that has rightly taken the attention of this House on many occasions. I make the broader point that, as we restrict illegal migration through the legislative pathway that I was just describing, we will do more to help people at risk of war and persecution by setting up safe and legal routes, as we have done in the cases of Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine. Since 2015, the UK has offered places and safety to nearly 480,000 people. The Government will commit to resettle a specific number of the most vulnerable refugees from around the world every year, working with local councils to understand their capacity for accommodation and support first and providing for the annual number to be agreed by both Houses.

Afghanistan: British Council Staff

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that, to speak for my own department, we are working through those expressions of interest and are also working closely with GardaWorld and the British Council. Of course, the Chevening scholars, the third cohort highlighted for pathway 3, are an integrated part—they are part and parcel—of the FCDO. However, I understand the frustrations of the noble Lord and indeed everyone in your Lordships’ House who has worked on this. There are processes that need to be followed, including the checks and balances regarding security, which I know the noble Lord agrees must happen. We are also working with near neighbours; there are a number of people who are now waiting in third countries, being supported by the British Government, who need to travel to the UK. We are working across Government, including with colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Home Office, to ensure that those who qualify and are in third countries can, as quickly as possible, come to the UK and start to rebuild their lives.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there is a difference between the ARAP scheme, which did not have a limit on numbers, and the ACRS. My understanding is that some former British Council contractors are deemed eligible to come but have additional family members, which has delayed their ability to come to the United Kingdom. What conversations is the Minister having with the Home Office about this matter? In particular, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, last week whether a meeting with the Home Office would be possible. He said that he would decide whether it was necessary to meet me. I hope that the Minister at the FCDO might feel that a meeting could be useful.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My noble friend is not here to share his response but I always feel that Ministers across your Lordships’ House need to engage directly. I know that those are the sentiments of my noble friend the Leader of the House, as well, so I will certainly look into that. On the specific point that the noble Baroness raised, I am aware of some of the cases that have been raised of those who did not qualify under the ARAP scheme and have applied to the ACRS scheme. A number of those cases are being worked through but I am not going to give specific numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about getting into specifics but the numbers regarding those who qualify and under what category, and which part of the process they have reached, are literally moving on a daily basis. However, I assure the noble Baroness of my good offices and if she wishes to meet me, I should be happy to do so.

Genocide Determination Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Singh, just made very clear, genocide is genocide wherever it happens. There is a simplicity to that statement, but I think belief in it is shared across your Lordships’ House. Genocide is something that we fundamentally understand. It may have been defined only in the post-war era, by Raphael Lemkin, as my noble friend Lady Sheehan pointed out, but that very specific crime against humanity of genocide is one we understand.

Yes, the Holocaust is the most obvious and discussed example, but it is not the only one. Today, many previous genocides have been discussed, some of which I will touch on later, but in many ways this debate feels like the logical successor of the debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. The Minister and I have participated in both debates. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, my friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been tireless in his efforts to ensure that His Majesty’s Government begin to take their obligations under the genocide convention seriously.

As I understand the Library briefing, this Bill is the fifth attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to pass a Private Member’s Bill to determine genocide. Yet, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Singh, in some ways our understanding of genocide ought to be straightforward. In debate after debate in your Lordships’ House, we have heard cross-party voices, so often including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, along with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, saying that we need to call out something as genocide and that the Government need to accept it and act. The response from the Dispatch Box has been, “We can’t do that. It is not for us, as a Government, to determine a genocide. It is for the courts to decide”. Well, this Private Member’s Bill is seeking to assure a precise way in which, when a genocide is being perpetrated or is in prospect, we do not turn away; we all look and respond. It is incumbent on His Majesty’s Government to do just that.

As the right reverend Prelate pointed out when quoting William Wilberforce, you cannot pretend the facts are not there and choose to look the other way. If we know that something is happening that can only reasonably be called a genocide, it is surely incumbent on His Majesty’s Government to act and on all of us in Parliament, in this Chamber and the other place, to do whatever we can to stop a genocide that could happen or is in the process of happening.

Clearly, there are times when it is important to acknowledge that there has been a genocide, and the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, spoke so movingly of his family’s experience of the Armenian genocide. Of course, it is vital to acknowledge when there has been a genocide and pay our respects to those who have lost their families. But how much more could we be doing now to ensure that genocides are not perpetrated? We cannot bring the dead back. If people’s reproductive rights are being threatened now, if we say, “Well, at some future date we might think it was a genocide”, by then it will be too late. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future.

The crime of genocide is the worst, and yet, somehow, it is one that His Majesty’s Government seem unable to acknowledge in many ways. My noble friend Lord Alton pointed out that, while he was a Telegraph columnist, Boris Johnson said that it was baffling that we could not name the Iraqi genocide against the Yazidis. Yet, it is commonplace that Governments—not just His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom but other European governments as well—seem to be unwilling or unable to define genocide. Is it because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, pointed out, it can be difficult to define? It is not as easy as simply saying, “Genocide is genocide wherever it is”. But if Governments acknowledge that a genocide is or might be taking place, that Government have obligations under the genocide convention and under the responsibility to protect.

It is vital that Parliament holds the Government to account on their international obligations under those conventions. Equally, we do need to ensure that we have a way that gets beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, called “Catch-22”; it is not a good use of parliamentary time for us to have a debate on almost every single piece of legislation where the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, can just find a chink of light so that maybe we can talk about potential genocide. That is not a sensible way of going about things, however inventive it might be. We need to have clarity on determining genocide. This proposed legislation provides a way that includes Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary. We are not asking the Government to make their own determination, but to send something to the courts. The Catch-22 in the past has been precisely that the courts have said, “It’s not for us to determine, we need some mechanism to be able to do that”. This proposed legislation gives us the opportunity to define genocide—or, at least, to find a way of determining it.

There have been far too many cases of genocide throughout history, even since World War Two, the war to end all wars—nie wieder Auschwitz. We have heard this afternoon of so many genocides and the only one where I have really talked to victims was in Bosnia. I went on an all-party parliamentary visit last year to Bosnia, where 30 years after Srebrenica the mothers are still looking for parts of the bodies of their children; the genocide was not about simply saying, “We will kill young men”; the bodies were ripped apart and the bones we buried in all sorts of different places precisely because that would make it much harder to identify individuals. Those families are still grieving 30 years on. The pain of the mothers who lost children is palpable. That is just one case among so many. We can talk about it now and we can regret it, but how much better if we could act as soon as there was a danger of genocide, because we should not turn away and we must not turn away.

Liberated from the Government Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has admitted that maybe the line that the Minister is usually asked to rehearse is not necessarily the right line. I do not quite expect the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to throw off the shackles of government today in order to join us and say, “This Bill is the right Bill”, but we ask him to find a way to work with us so that we are not amending Bill after Bill in an ad hoc way, but so that we find a way to ensure that His Majesty’s Government can define genocide and send things to the court for a preliminary ruling if necessary. This is a Bill whose time has come, and we need His Majesty’s Government to step up to the plate and help us to ensure that the United Kingdom is abiding by our international obligations and that we lead on these international obligations. I support the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect that this is going to be one of those rare debates in your Lordships’ House in which everyone across the House says similar things. We all strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, on this small but important Bill.

Occasionally, Members rise to speak and there is unanimity in the House, with one exception: the Government Front Bench. I am delighted to see the Minister still in his place. Fortunately, Lords Ministers seem to have a longer shelf life than their Commons colleagues; when we have good Ministers, it is good to keep them. I hope that on this occasion, he will feel able to give us some reassurance because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, pointed out, the United Kingdom is coming to the end of its fourth national action plan for women, peace and security and we are allegedly due a fifth one by the end of this year. I hope that the Minister agrees with the view from across the House that the women, peace and security agenda is important but also needs to be scrutinised; perhaps he might even consider giving some government time to ensure that this Bill can go through.

The noble Baroness—I would say, my noble friend—Lady Hodgson, in introducing the Bill pointed out that the APPG on Women, Peace and Security normally had meetings with Ministers after the annual reports, which it was unable to do this year because the report came out too late. Having the Bill and a formal legal requirement to bring an annual report is important, but obviously, there is a danger that reports requested by Parliament are simply slipped out through Written Ministerial Statements. If the Bill is enacted, would it be possible not to just slip out a report under cover of a Written Ministerial Statement but give government time to debate this important issue annually? That is going slightly further than the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, asks for in the Bill, but if you do not ask, you do not get.

The Bill is, unfortunately, all too timely. The war in Ukraine has again highlighted the dangers of conflict for women and girls, and the withdrawal from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021 left behind many of the most vulnerable. Can the Minister tell the House where we are on getting vulnerable people out of Afghanistan? The nature of the news cycle means that the media seem able to cope with only one issue at the time. For a couple of weeks, it was Afghanistan; for a longer period, it was Ukraine; then it was the Conservative leadership election for a jolly long time; then the death of Her late Majesty the Queen; then another Conservative leadership election—and we almost seem to have forgotten the international dimension. If there could be a little update on Afghanistan, that would be most welcome.

The requirement also talks about having women at the table. Vicky Ford has just been removed as the Minister for Development in the FCDO. The return of Andrew Mitchell is in many ways welcome, but who does the Minister see leading on this in the FCDO? Will it be, for example, Anne-Marie Trevelyan? Will he pass back to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, a request for similar thoughts about what the MoD is doing in this regard?

Finally, while he was on the Conservative Back Benches, Andrew Mitchell was very clear about the importance of development, to which the women, peace and security agenda is also linked. There has been a lot of criticism of the Government's failure to give financial commitments to parts of the women, peace and security agenda, particularly from the Gender Action for Peace and Security civil society network. I hope Andrew Mitchell may be able to get the Government back on the straight and narrow, but before that, could the Minister tell us when he anticipates that our commitment to overseas development aid will go back to the legally binding 0.7%?

Russia: Tactical Nuclear Weapon Deployment

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

That is very much the view of the British Government. As the noble Lord knows, we have maintained and will continue to maintain our deterrent for all eventualities.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, NATO was created to contain the threat of the former Soviet Union—an entity that no longer exists. It is individual countries, not NATO, that have been aiding and helping the brave people of Ukraine. Would the Minister agree that if we were to say that we will disband NATO it might just give Putin the escape route he so desperately requires? If that does not work, it will at least show the Russian people what sort of person Putin is.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, it is precisely the existence of NATO that gives us some hope that we can check President Putin’s power. NATO has been very clear, as we as an active member of it have been, that we will continue to respond to Russia’s threat and hostile actions in a united and responsible way, including by significantly strengthening deterrence and defence for all allies. NATO absolutely does not seek confrontation with Russia, but it is nevertheless speaking with one very clear voice.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, when I stood to intervene a moment ago, I had planned to point out that the head of GCHQ had pointed out that any talk of using nuclear weapons was highly dangerous. I would now add to that that any talk of disbanding NATO is also highly dangerous and misguided.

I had planned to ask the Minister what lessons the Prime Minister had taken away from the meeting of the new European Political Community in Prague last week. She spoke very highly of the fact that there was collective resolve to stand up to Russian aggression. I wonder how that will be demonstrated.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, in the grimness of the situation in Ukraine and the aggression that has been brought on by Vladimir Putin, one silver lining that has perhaps resulted is that Europe really has come together and really does speak with one voice on this issue. That is reflected in so many other discussions we are having across the board with our friends and allies across the European Union.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak from perhaps a unique perspective in your Lordships’ House. Almost all the very powerful and moving tributes to Her late Majesty we have heard today have been from noble Lords who met Her Majesty, but I never met Her Majesty in person. I thought yesterday, “I don’t think I will rise to speak in tribute to Her late Majesty; what can I say?” But the more I thought about it, the more I thought, “Surely my perspective is somewhat more similar to the many millions of loyal subjects across the United Kingdom and other countries who have our sovereign as their head of state”. As my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, she dreamed of meeting the Queen when she was a child in Trinidad, and she never thought that that would happen. But in her case, like so many of your Lordships, she had the opportunity to meet Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Exactly eight years ago, the second Friday of September 2014, I received an email to say that Her Majesty the Queen had agreed my title. The missive had been sent thanks to Her Majesty the Queen, and my friends and relatives all said, “That’s wonderful; you’re going to be in the House of Lords. Does that mean you’re going to meet the Queen?” There was an immediate assumption that if the monarch opens Parliament, and if we see people who get MBEs, CBEs, DBEs and KBEs going to the palace to receive them from the Queen, then surely if you get a peerage—what higher honour could there be?—you receive it from the sovereign. So, I had to explain a little bit of the British constitution and how, although the Queen makes her Letters Patent in order for us to be here, in practice we do not kiss the ring or have any other direct interaction with Her Majesty the Queen.

Like many children of the 1970s, and like the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, I remember the Silver Jubilee—and I too remember Virginia Wade winning Wimbledon. I come from Liverpool and, like many children, I went to a street party. My mother paid five pence every week for a collection so that I could go, and I got one of the commemorative coins, just like every child. In the 1970s, when this country still believed in deference, you expected young children to look to Her Majesty the Queen, and people across the Commonwealth would look to the Royal Family. Fast forward 45 years and the world has changed fundamentally.

As we heard from my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who was present at the last Coronation, the country has become so much more diverse—we have heard from many noble Lords of different faiths—and the Queen has overseen that growing diversity. But the country itself has, in many ways, become much less deferential and much less interested—one might think—in pageantry. However, my youngest godson, who is three, and his brother like nothing more than singing what they call “The Queen’s song”; to them, that is what the national anthem is. That might be strange. I do not know how many three, four or five year-olds like to sing their national anthem—this is not a country like the United States, where you are expected to do so—but for those children, and for anybody under the age of 70, our national anthem has been wrapped up with the identity of Her Majesty the Queen. All of us are going to have to think about what it means to have King Charles III, and we are all going to have to get used to thinking about His Majesty the King.

One of the things that has been so tremendous this week is the outpouring of grief in the country. This is a personal moment for the Royal Family—like other noble Lords, I send my most sincere condolences to His Majesty the King, the Queen Consort and the rest of the Royal Family—but it is also a time of heartfelt grief in this country and other countries where Her Majesty the Queen was head of state. She has been the most wonderful role model, both for those of you who met her and for those of us who never met her in person. We can only hope and pray that, whereas Her late Majesty had a very short apprenticeship to be our Queen, her son, who has had a 70-year apprenticeship from the best teacher he could have had, will find the faith and fortitude to be as wonderful a monarch of our country as his late mother. I wish him well. God save the King—and thank you, Ma’am.

[Lord Alli (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not spoken in your Lordships’ House for many years but I felt compelled to do so today, and I am glad I did. I wish to associate myself with much of what has been said about Her late Majesty and everything she embodied. I also echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and pay tribute to the opening speeches by the Front Benches and many others today. It makes you proud to be a Member of this House as you listen to the tributes, the contributions that almost everybody in this House has made to public life and the interaction they have had with Her Majesty the Queen.

Her Majesty’s life set us all an example. My time in this House—it has been long—has been focused on equality, as many noble Lords will know. The notion of equality and monarchy can be difficult to reconcile in the abstract. The most fitting tribute I can pay to the late Queen is that she made that reconciliation look easy. She was a great equaliser; she equalised in almost every room into which she stepped. Her sense of duty should humble us all.

I have always been enamoured by the motto of the BBC:

“Nation shall speak peace unto nation”.


Her Majesty was the personification of this, and I mourn her passing. I celebrate her life, with all of you, and I wish long life to His Majesty the King.

Food Insecurity in Developing Countries due to Blockade of Ukrainian Ports

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is fascinating to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, whose contribution advocating global free trade was nothing if not passionate, and clearly extremely well-informed. It was a thought-provoking contribution, but perhaps one that did not speak to all the problems in the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in this debate. Discussing insecurity and self-sufficiency might matter at certain times for certain countries, but the Horn of Africa and countries that are on the verge of starvation already are not saying that they must be self-sufficient. They are facing extreme poverty and food insecurity precisely because of manmade problems caused by the war led by Russia. Although there is a lot we can talk about around free trade and the ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I would like to take the House back to Ukraine, and think about the implications of this war and starvation as a weapon of war.

We are already five months beyond the Russian incursion into Ukraine—five months that appear to have gone very quickly. When the invasion happened, Ukraine was at the top of the headlines. People in western Europe were listening very closely; we were following everything that happened. Five months on, if you follow the British media, one would be hard pressed to know that there was anything going on other than two days of climate crisis—a heatwave—and a Conservative leadership campaign, one of the leading candidates being the Foreign Secretary. One wonders whether she has time to be doing the day job while vying to be Prime Minister, but I will leave that aside.

For five months, the Ukrainian people have sought to defend themselves. The food insecurity they are facing is manmade; it is caused by Russia. One of the questions I would like the Minister to think about and respond to is whether Her Majesty’s Government have looked at the 1977 protocols to the Geneva convention and the 1998 Rome statute of the ICC. Have Her Majesty’s Government thought about whether the actions of Russia could be tantamount to using starvation as a tool of war, and so potentially a war crime? If that is the case, should Russia be brought before the ICC on those grounds?

The war in Ukraine shook Europe. It shook the very foundations of people like me: liberal, European integrationists who thought that European integration had kept the peace in Europe for 70 years, and that we were not likely to see war again in our continent. Lest anyone pop up to say, “But there was Bosnia, 30 years ago”, I have not forgotten that. For those of us in the United Kingdom, and in western and particularly central Europe, the invasion shocked us and raised a set of concerns. Very often, we hear that in other countries in other parts of the globe, Ukraine is still seen as a distant place and the reasons for the war are contested; in many ways, it appears that the consequences of the war are misunderstood. The assumption is that this is about the continent of Europe. But this goes far beyond Ukraine: it impacts global food security, and in particular it impacts the very poorest in the world.

I should like briefly to outline the impact of Ukraine on food insecurity and food supply, and then look at the wider global implications, particularly as they affect Africa. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Alton, much of global wheat supply has previously come from Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine exported its wheat through the Black Sea. That is no longer possible precisely because of the actions of Russia: deliberate actions for which we need to hold Russia accountable. I was shocked and surprised to hear my noble friend say that when the Minister for Africa responded to your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee about Ukraine, she said, “Well, it’s Russia’s fault.” Russia may be the cause of this, but we all need to look for ways in which we can enhance food security and reduce the risk of famine and food insecurity in the African continent.

We have listened to parliamentary debates and the Conservative leadership campaigns. We keep hearing about the cost of living crisis, but fuel and food prices are also being inflated by the consequences of the war. It is desirable that we all look for ways to enhance Ukraine’s ability to continue producing food and exporting it. We have a very serious situation, which my noble friend already touched on.

I am grateful to Ewelina Ochab for a briefing she sent raising some of the issues that the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had raised with her. I understand that the Minister met with a representative from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during the International Ministerial Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief, so those issues will not come as a surprise. The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is saying that there are credible reports of Russian troops on Ukrainian agricultural land, inevitably rendering it not fit for purpose and damaging agricultural produce, attacks on Ukrainian agricultural infrastructure and the high-level blocking of exports via the Black Sea. Putin is targeting grain and destroying crops, and then there is the question of looting. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the situation in terms of food security and the indications for Ukraine? There are 12 million displaced people in Ukraine, and many of them are facing food shortages.

Those shortages are compounded by a sense of compassion fatigue. I received two letters ahead of this debate from charities, Kaganek in Poland and Caritas in Lviv. Kaganek said that, at the start of the crisis, it was able to take a truck of food a week into Ukraine, and then built up to two trucks a week. In the first half of May, it sent 10 trucks, but now it is struggling to send one truck of food in a month. Why is that? Because donations are no longer forthcoming. Perhaps the media is not covering the crisis in the same way. Similarly, Caritas suggested that there has been a decrease in humanitarian aid estimated at 70%.

The Minister will reply not on behalf of the Foreign Office but of what is now the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Does he feel that what Her Majesty’s Government are able to do to assist on a humanitarian basis in Ukraine is adequate? Does he believe what we are able to do in Africa is adequate? The House of Lords Library, in its excellent briefing, gave a response from Vicky Forde, the Minister for Africa, about what the UK is doing in Africa, and it is merely a drop in the ocean. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing in terms of aid, because we see potential catastrophe in Africa caused by the blockade of the Black Sea?

I have a final question for the Minister. In order to unlock the Black Sea, what conversations have Her Majesty’s Government had with President Erdoğan, and what does the Minister believe has come from the meeting in Tehran yesterday? The media seem more interested in the fact that Erdoğan kept Putin waiting for 50 seconds then the actual outcome. This should not be about the optics; it should be about clear and practical politics and getting solutions. This is in part about Ukraine, in part about a domestic cost of living crisis and, crucially, about the potential death by famine and starvation in the continent of Africa.