Ukraine Update

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Newby

Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement.

Since we rose for the Summer Recess, the Ukrainian army has had some very significant successes and appears to be making extremely good use of the resources which we and our allies are providing it with.

We on these Benches, like the Opposition, remain supportive of the stance which the Government have taken in supporting the Ukrainian Government, and we welcome the initiatives that the Secretary of State has outlined in the Statement. I have just a few questions.

First, on Zaporizhzhia, the UN is quoted in the Statement as being concerned about the dangerous situation which still obtains there. In the light of that—presumably the UK Government agree with that assessment—what scenario planning has been undertaken to look at the potential fallout, literally, of a major nuclear release at Zaporizhzhia, which is by no means impossible?

On the gifting of military equipment, there will come a point—in some areas, we have probably reached it—when we have gifted all the equipment we have or cannot gift any more without our own capabilities being too far eroded. Can the Minister confirm that new orders are being placed to replace donated stock and/or produce new equipment which we can then simply gift directly from the factory to the Ukrainian army?

Training is one of the most commendable aspects of the work we have done, not least because we have been able to add a considerable amount of capacity at a very modest cost. I echo the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the future plans for this scheme in terms of both the number of soldiers involved and its scope. Is any training involving the Ukrainian air force and navy currently being undertaken or planned?

I want to ask about the scope of the international support fund. Is it limited, as I suspect it is, to arms and military supplies or does it extend to the concept of a broader Marshall plan for the reconstruction of Ukraine? We are going to need that at some point; I just wonder whether this initiative will form the nucleus of such a broader scheme.

It was reported in the FT today that the EU is to hold a summit of European states next month to build regional co-operation in the face of Russian aggression, and that the UK has been invited to participate. Can the Minister tell us whether the UK has indeed received such an invitation and, if so, whether it has responded to it? If the answer to the latter part of the question is no, I ask the Minister to urge her colleagues—not least the new Prime Minister—that it is crucial that the UK is represented at any such event so that we can both demonstrate the maximum degree of European unity on the issue and ensure that the UK exercises the maximum influence on the co-ordinated European response.

Finally, I want to ask a couple of questions about refugees. I accept that they may be beyond the Minister’s immediate remit but perhaps she could write to me if she cannot answer them. First, what is the Government’s plan for further support for Ukrainian refugees here once we have passed the six-month point? Secondly, how long do the Government envisage the scheme being open? At what point do they envisage themselves saying that the situation in Ukraine is stable enough for the scheme to end? Thirdly, what plans do the Government have to expand the support that British universities are giving to students from Ukraine, particularly in technical subjects such as medicine where, again, as with the basic military training, a small amount of expenditure could yield significant results for Ukraine’s future prospects?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Newby, for the tenor of their introductory remarks, which was welcome; I particularly thank them for their kind remarks in relation to me. As I have said before—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State echoed this today in the other place—the force and cogency with which the UK has been able to assist Ukraine have been helped enormously by political unanimity in Westminster. It has sent a very strong message, not just to friends and allies but to Mr Putin, that in the UK there is absolutely united resolve at the political level to deal with and address this evil, and not just to talk about it but to put our money where our mouth is and provide substantive help. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their positive comments.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the issue of training and the timeframe, as was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Although we have planned with an initial training programme of 10,000 Ukrainian personnel, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated today in the other place that this support will, frankly, be provided for as long as it is needed. I think we all understand that this training is having a hugely positive impact on both the morale and the capacity and capability of the Ukrainian armed forces to deal with this threat within their country. We are under no illusions about the support that we can give on the training front, and so we accept that we are not putting a timeframe on it. We will rely on Ukraine to tell us what it needs and how many people it can present for training. We can have all the capacity and capability, but we need the Ukrainian armed forces to present people for training.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about numbers. The Statement referred to the numbers that we have been training and hope to train. My understanding is that we plan to provide up to 1,050 UK service personnel to facilitate the training of the Ukrainian armed forces.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised the matter of whether we can meet the demand for weapons and asked what we are doing about replacement. These are very pertinent questions. We have been meeting demand. Again, we are liaising daily with the Ukrainian Government. As the noble Lord will be aware, we had significant stockpiles, some of which contained weapons that were not in the first flush of youth, but that did not mean that they were not still effective and useful. We have been able to draw on these stockpiles. The pertinent question then is whether we come to a point of replacement. The answer is twofold. Yes, we do, but we have made sure that at no time have we compromised the UK’s ability to defend itself and address its own national security needs, and we have been in regular consultation with industry and signalled that we anticipate approaching it with orders and that they should be getting their houses in order to ensure that they are able to deal with the supply of whatever that request may be.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about our strategy for supporting Ukraine. We all acknowledge that the character of the conflict has changed since it started, many months ago. It has perhaps moved on from being purely defensive to us now seeing Ukraine with an appetite to be offensive in trying to recover territory. Our strategy is that we constantly liaise with the Ukrainian Government, as we do with our military allies and partners, to assess what we can do to support Ukraine in what it thinks it needs at this time in the conflict. It is quite difficult to say with any precision what we might be doing at the end of this month or at the end of November because it depends on the fluidity of the conflict. As for the resolve, the commitment and the determination of the United Kingdom and our friends and allies to support Ukraine, let there be no doubt that it is rock-solid.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about NATO and European unity, which I would say is positive and strong. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked particularly about the EU summit, which I will come to. We have had a very good relationship with the EU, which has been cemented by the universal recognition that, when you are confronted with a threat such as Russia’s illegal invasion of a sovereign country, nobody is safe. Everybody understands the mutuality of that threat and the need to stand shoulder to shoulder and agree on how to address that threat and how to support Ukraine in resisting this illegal invasion.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, very articulately encapsulated that the energy crisis is caused by Putin. That is a message that must repeatedly be got out. The problems that we are all confronted by, not just in this country but across the globe, on energy prices, inflation and escalating food prices have been created by Putin.

We are doing everything we can to help to mitigate the effects of that, and that is partly what we are doing to assist Ukraine. President Putin is now finding that his war in Ukraine is a very expensive, distracting and damaging exercise for him and his country. That is partly to do with what we and our allies and partners are doing to support Ukraine, the effect of sanctions and the miscalculation that he made about the reaction to this invasion. He thought that this was some kind of little local incursion that he could make into a country that he took a fancy to, and he had absolutely no realisation of the global impact of his illegal activity. We are doing everything we can to help.

I cannot pre-empt what the new Prime Minister may wish to announce in relation to trying to alleviate the very corrosive impact of these prices on ordinary families in the United Kingdom, but all the indications are that the Prime Minister intends to make an announcement. I anticipate that the Government will come forward with specific plans to provide help.

There was another question about when the grain ships will leave. I do not have specific information about that, other than what is already in the Statement. Again, that is a fluid situation. When the ships can get in and be loaded, they will leave.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked specifically about the integrated review and the cuts to the Army. I repeat what my right honourable friend said in the other place: the integrated review, which we all know is a substantial piece of work, absolutely correctly identified the main threat—it is Russia. It has been confirmed sharply that the integrated review was right in that analysis.

On the cuts to the Army, as the Secretary of State has repeatedly indicated, it is always a difficult question within defence, when you look at the overall capability, to determine what you will do with money if you get it or get more of it. He summed it up very neatly today when he said that, if you get more resource, you need to look at how to make the Armed Forces less vulnerable. There may be a variety of ways to do that.

I would like to echo the final sentiment of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who said that it is absolutely critical that all of us who are minded to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, whether as political parties of the UK or nation states who are partners and friends, stand firm. The noble Lord is absolutely correct. That must happen, and we must not allow a cigarette paper to filter between us.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the nuclear plant at Zaporizhzhia. The inspection has been very recent, and we are awaiting further information. It will then be easier to make an assessment of the situation and what response, if any, should be made.

On the reconstruction of Ukraine, we all wish we had a crystal ball. We do not know what lies ahead, but we know that there is a concerted view that Ukraine will need help with that reconstruction. It is premature to discuss it now, but we will certainly look at it when the time is appropriate.

I am unable to answer whether the United Kingdom has been invited to the EU summit about rebuilding Ukraine—it is a bit wide of my remit. I can certainly make inquiries and write to the noble Lord.

Finally, the noble Lord had a number of questions about refugees. Again, these are outwith my particular ministerial remit, but I have made of note of them. I shall look at Hansard and see if we can provide some response.

EU Withdrawal Agreement

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Newby

Monday 7th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has just described the telephone schedule of the Prime Minister when she wished a happy new year to a series of European leaders. But the truth is that nothing substantive was achieved before Christmas after the vote was pulled and nothing has actually happened since Christmas at all. The Government are to explain their achievements on Wednesday, but is it not the case that their only achievement has been pointlessly and irresponsibly to delay by four weeks this crucial vote which they know they are going to lose?

[Baroness Goldie]

I think that the noble Lord takes a rather jaundiced view of the proceedings and I do not accept his interpretation. As I have said, the Prime Minister has been working assiduously and there have been plaudits from unexpected quarters for her demonstration of commitment and her industry in endeavouring to take these matters forward. It was very important that the Prime Minister should convey to her counterparts in the EU precisely what the concerns of Parliament are. That is what she has been doing, and as I say, my noble friend Lord Callanan is en route to Brussels as we speak. These are delicate, sensitive and vital negotiations and I am sure that minds will be focused on doing what they can. This deal is good for the UK and it is good for the EU, and I think that there is a desire to take things forward.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Newby

Report: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

We are not reconsidering. We are simply considering the appropriate text. The general point has been made clear by the Government: that they will not want to retract what is already their policy position. They will simply undertake to inform the House when a form of words has been adjusted.

[Lord Newby]

Is the Minister saying that the Government have no intention to come back on this issue at Third Reading?

[Baroness Goldie]

Indeed. That is the case.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Newby

Committee: 11th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

I hear the noble Lord, and I shall certainly reflect on that observation, but if I may be permitted to advance what the Government consider to be the case in relation to the proposition that this be dealt with by secondary legislation it might enable the Committee to understand why the Government have adopted the view that we have. The alternative option to require that any such direction is to be made of secondary legislation would arguably be counter- productive. The task of identifying instruments that will not become retained EU law will be a continuous one, and our awareness of such instruments will grow over time. I understand and respect the motives behind the amendment. I have to suggest that it would seem rather paradoxical to require the Government to legislate repeatedly in order to avoid the publication of irrelevant EU legislation, but maybe I am being perverse in looking at it that way. The legislation required to ensure that our law operates effectively after exit day will be significant, and I respectfully suggest that we should try not to add to that task in this case. As I have said, though, many useful points have been raised on this complex question, and I shall reflect on all the contributions made. However, on the basis of what I have been able to say, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Newby]

The Minister started her speech by saying one of the principal reasons why the Government were opposing this amendment was that what it proposed was “impractical”. I have been listening very carefully, but I do not think she has explained why it is impractical. She has explained a number of other objections that the Government have, but surely it is not impractical. It is perfectly possible to do it. It is just that the Government do not want to do it, for other reasons.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Newby

Committee: 10th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as a co-signatory to Amendments 334 and 343, I support them and the thrust of the debate. It can be summarised in a sentence from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who said that it was neither necessary nor desirable to have 29 March in the Bill, which was why that date was not in the Bill in the first case.

Noble Lords on different sides of the argument have suggested why there may be a need to be flexible at the end. Can the Minister help me to understand the draft agreement, published last week, which seems to admit of one of them? In Article 168—entry into force and application—a paragraph is printed in yellow, which means that the negotiators have agreed on the policy objective. So, the Government have agreed the following policy objective:

“This Agreement shall enter into force on 30 March 2019. In case, prior to that date, the depositary of this Agreement has not received the written notification of the completion of the necessary internal procedures by each Party, this Agreement may not enter into force”.


That seems to admit of two possibilities. One is that there is a slight delay until the depositary has received the necessary notification of all parties to the agreement, including the European Parliament as well as this one, having gone through those procedures. The other potential meaning—I cannot believe that it is the meaning but it is not clear—is that if by, say, 1 April the European Parliament has not notified its agreement to the agreement, the agreement would fall. I cannot believe that that is the meaning. I thought that the meaning must be that if the formalities of the parties of the agreement have not been completed, the agreement is in abeyance until they have been. It raises the interesting subsequent question as to how the two-year period in Article 50 is interpreted. Can the Minister attempt to explain that position and what the Government understand by the meaning of Article 168 to me?

The bigger point I seek to make is that there are a number of reasons why it may be in everybody’s interests to slightly change the date on which our exit is triggered. The way in which the Bill has been amended does not facilitate that process and it should therefore revert to its original drafting.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords who have participated in an interesting and very spirited discussion. I know that the issue of exit day in the Bill is important to many in this House. That was certainly the case in the other place, where—as a number of your Lordships have mentioned—multiple alterations were made to the original drafting of the Bill. I hope noble Lords will indulge me in a bit of scene-setting.

Initially, the Bill gave full discretion to the Government on the setting of exit day for the purposes of the Bill, subject to no parliamentary scrutiny procedure. It was also technically possible for Ministers to set multiple exit days for different purposes. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to that. For some parliamentarians, this mechanism was not acceptable because it gave rise to uncertainty as to whether the exit day appointed by the Bill would correspond to the day that the UK actually leaves the EU at the end of the Article 50 process, which had always been the Government’s intention. Therefore the Government brought forward amendments to set exit day in the Bill as 11 pm on 29 March 2019. That was to bring the Bill in line with the calculation of the estimated date and time of exit under Article 50.

However, as the Bill progressed through the other place, some Members highlighted that our first set of amendments did not fully represent a technical alignment with our legal options under international law. To align fully, we would have to provide a mechanism for exit day in the Bill to change, corresponding to the detail of Article 50.3 of the Treaty on European Union. Let me make clear to your Lordships that this is a mechanism that the UK does not have any intention of using. None the less, this anomaly had been highlighted, so a technical amendment to the Bill was tabled that allows the Government to change exit day as defined in the Bill, but only if the date at which the treaties cease to apply to the UK changes from its currently envisaged moment on 29 March 2019.

Any such regulation changing this date in the Act would be subject to the affirmative procedure. I stress that the Clause 14 power does not have access to the “made affirmative” procedure, so the normal timetabling process would apply to any regulations made to amend exit day. That is where we are now with the drafting of the Bill, and I suggest to your Lordships that there are a number of reasons why this position should not change.

First, this issue has clearly been scrutinised heavily in the other place. Indeed, it was possibly one of the most politically salient areas of the Bill, and certainly one of the most amended. Secondly, a sensible, mutually agreeable position was reached in the other place. It was not earmarked as an issue to come back to; it was a settled policy position and it commanded a comfortable majority. Finally, and most importantly, the Bill now matches the reality of the UK’s position under international law. This is the key point: exit day within the Bill should not be significant in and of itself, as it merely mirrors the actual moment at which we leave the EU under international law. Importantly, exit day is the clearly defined pivot on which this Bill turns. With the greatest respect to noble Lords, I therefore cannot support the amendments that seek to alter or undo the compromise reached in the other place.

Let me now try to analyse and comment on the specific amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie]

Turning to the last point first, I have, for the sake of the noble Lord, tried to clarify where the Government were—as he rightly indicates—where they went, and why they went to that position. I cannot add to that: that is why we are in the position that we currently are. I will cover his other point about the connection with the implementation Bill, and I hope he will show me forbearance and let me deal with it.

I turn to Amendments 334 and 343, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which seek largely to bring the Bill back to the state of its original drafting. However, as I have already set out, the Bill was not acceptable to the elected Chamber in that state. Instead, an acceptable compromise was reached that does two things: it simultaneously diminishes the power of Ministers in exercising delegated powers and increases the role of Parliament. It also introduced flexibility in varying the date, if required. It is not the case, as the noble Baroness suggested, that it is a straitjacket. That fear of rigidity and inflexibility was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in relation to the hypothetical extension of the Article 50 period. If that were to happen, exit day would then be linked to when the treaty ceased to apply, and the flexibility to vary the date is then expressly provided for in the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was worried that the insertion of a specific date in the Bill would somehow prejudice the Government’s ability in the negotiations. However, it is the very flexibility that is now in the Bill that enables the Government to respond sensibly and responsibly to whatever the negotiations may produce. That was also a fear on the part of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat and others, but the Government argue that, far from the flexibility prejudicing the negotiations, it facilitates and provides elasticity in the conduct of the negotiations. Given that, I regret that I am unable to support the noble Baroness and the Opposition Front Bench in attempting to overturn the existing provisions of the Bill. We believe that what emerged from the other place strikes the right balance.

I understand that there are concerns regarding the interplay between the implementation period and exit day. However, as I will reiterate shortly, this is not a Bill designed to legislate for the implementation period.

I move now to Amendment 345A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, which would remove part of Clause 14(4)(a). It always distresses me to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but not only am I not departing from my script—as he was speaking, I was busily adding to it. With his amendment, if the date at which the treaties cease to apply to the UK is different from the date we have put in the Bill, Ministers could amend the definition of exit day to any new date and not just the new date on which the treaties will cease to apply, as the Bill currently prescribes. The Government are conforming to international law, and we want to keep the Bill in line with that position. That is why we are unable to accept the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendments 344 and 346, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, take a different approach, including seeking to insert a new clause which would make the exercise of powers under Clause 14(4) subject to a parliamentary resolution. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 already provides explicitly for a parliamentary vote on any changes to exit day. This was part of the compromise reached in the other place and is, I suggest, an appropriate level of scrutiny.

Amendment 334A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, attempts to shift the setting of exit day into the statute enacted for the purpose of Clause 9(1) of this Bill. I understand the noble Lord’s amendment to mean that he wishes exit day to be set in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill—something to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred a moment or two ago. With respect, I think we are familiar with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when it comes to leaving the EU, and I appreciate that within this House he is not alone. However, with regards to Clause 14, the failure to set an exit day for the purposes of this Bill has no bearing on whether or not we leave the EU, but such a failure certainly affects the manner in which we leave. If we cannot set an exit day, many functions of the Bill which hinge upon it—such as the repeal of the European Communities Act and the snapshot of EU law—would simply not occur. That would render the Bill largely redundant, preventing us from providing a fully functioning statute book and creating a void leading to total legal uncertainty when we leave—but we shall still leave.

Amendment 335, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, attempts to set exit day at the end of the implementation period. I can appreciate the argument made here, which has been mirrored by some of the contributions made today. However, it is not the role of this Bill to legislate for the implementation period; that is for the forthcoming withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. To do so in this Bill would link its operation inextricably to the ongoing negotiations, which is not the intention of this Bill. This Bill is intended to stand part and is—I have used the phrase previously—a mechanism or device whereby we avoid the yawning chasm which would occur if a huge bundle of very important law disappeared into a black hole. We cannot allow that to happen.

I accept that Amendment 345, tabled by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, is well intentioned. However, I suggest that it is unnecessary. I believe that the intention behind this amendment is to ensure that exit day can be changed if Parliament resolves to instruct the Government to request an extension of the Article 50 process—this was the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred. But as I pointed out earlier, if the Government were to make such a request, and that request was granted, the power would be engaged by virtue of subsections (3) and (4) anyway, so it is covered. I also reiterate a point made in an earlier debate that, fundamentally, it is our belief that we should not extend the Article 50 period and that this Bill is not the vehicle to raise questions of whose role it is to act on the international plane.

I finish by quoting directly from the Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill, which I know we all hold in high regard. It said that, on exit day:

“The revised definition of ‘exit day’ in the Bill sets appropriate limits on ministerial discretion and provides greater clarity as to the relationship between ‘exit day’ as it applies in domestic law and the date on which the UK will leave the European Union as a matter of international law. It also allows the Government a degree of flexibility to accommodate any change to the date on which EU treaties cease to apply to the UK”.


I realise that I may not have persuaded all of your Lordships of the Government’s position but I would at least hope that noble Lords will have some regard to the committee’s assessment of this issue. On that note, I hope the noble Baroness will agree not to press her amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked a pertinent question. He said that the Government have indicated in the draft agreement published recently that certain provisions apply, and he referred to a particular paragraph. I merely remind him that the Government have said before that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and the exit day power gives the Government the flexibility to reflect whatever is agreed in the final text of Article 168.

[Lord Newby]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. I agree that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but that document states on the front of it that the Government have agreed the policy in it when it is marked as a yellow paragraph. Given that the Government have agreed that policy—there is no trick here—I want to work out what it means.

[Baroness Goldie]

It is a statement of very healthy and good intention. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but it is certainly a signpost as to where we hope to go.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Newby

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

I merely observe that the breadth of activity implicit within the negotiations could anticipate issues arising that we are unable at this moment to specify. The Government have been sensible in retaining the flexibility in the negotiations to deal with these if they do arise. It is important in that event—

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the whole House is perplexed. Maybe we are perplexed because we are very tired, but might I suggest that the noble Baroness write to noble Lords with at least one or two examples of the problem she is describing? It is clearly the case that, for most of us, it sounds like a Sir Humphrey excuse and not a substantive point.

[Baroness Goldie]

It is not meant to be a Sir Humphrey excuse; it is meant to be an attempt to anticipate what is for most of us a very challenging scenario. However, I will of course take back the noble Lord’s suggestion and I will be very happy to try to produce some examples.

I shall return, if I may, to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I hope I am pronouncing her title correctly; those who come from Basildon may be interested to learn the pronunciation.