Covid-19

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, to most of us, it was obvious that plan B restrictions had to remain in place. As the Labour Party, we fulfilled our responsibilities to act in the national interest to support these when the Prime Minister faced such strong opposition from his own Benches. No one likes or enjoys these restrictions, but when they are needed to protect public health and the delivery of health and other public services, they will have our support. Internal party politics or personal ambition should never be a factor at these times.

In his Statement, the Prime Minister rightly praised everyone working in the health service and social care and the volunteers for their work on the vaccination programme. Their work is very impressive and, generally, the public response to getting the vaccine is equally impressive.

The Prime Minister now has to get a grip on those issues which could derail plan B. He has an opportunity to finally get a grip on the pharmaceutical interventions which could ultimately bring the pandemic to a close. Our lives are more global than ever. We have to do all we can to prevent further waves and new mutations. That means vaccinating beyond our own shores. The UN Secretary-General has warned that the world is far off track from meeting the WHO goal of vaccinating 70% of people in all countries by the middle of 2022. What steps are the Government taking to increase global supply to the COVAX scheme and what support is being given to increase vaccination capacity in low-income countries when the doses arrive?

At home, there is also more that the Government themselves could do to end the Government’s cycle of restrictions. Can the noble Baroness outline today what steps they will take to drive up vaccination rates in the 12 to 17 age group, and if not, please can she write to me? The noble Baroness will be aware of the report about recent new orders from the Government’s Antivirals Taskforce. Is she confident that all antivirals on order will be effective against omicron? Given the incidence of transmission in schools, can she say anything today by way of an explanation about why the Government are taking so long to act on the SAGE advice about recirculating air and ventilation? SAGE first mentioned it over two years ago, and it seems that the Government are dragging their heels at a crucial time.

On testing and self-isolation, the new requirements on a daily lateral flow test for critical workers are welcome. However, the Government have to ensure that the capacity exists to facilitate it. Local services across the UK are already buckling because doctors, nurses, carers and teachers cannot find the tests to meet current requirements. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I welcome the commitment to 100,000 tests per day in England for critical workers. However, can she tell me what percentage of critical workers that covers? I looked at how many workers are employed in England in the food manufacturing industry, and it is something like 400,000, and something like 120,000 workers are involved in providing bus services. I am not quite sure where the 100,000 tests will go and whether they will be adequate to meet demands. I went online this morning to try to order lateral flow tests, and they are still not available. Just when the Government say that we need to test more often, they go into short supply. That kind of lack of joined-up thinking undermines public confidence.

Can the noble Baroness the Leader also confirm what modelling the department has produced on test demand over the course of the current wave? When do the Government estimate that the current shortage of tests will end? There has to be a long-term plan for testing capacity. Given that we all agree that we will have to learn to live with some degree of Covid, can the noble Baroness tell us what steps the Government are taking to scale up the manufacturing of tests here in the UK? I am quite interested to know the proportion of current tests that are produced here in Britain. She will have seen the reports from a company that is already supplying to the EU, has the capacity and wants to supply to the UK, but we are importing tests from China and we have a shortage. Something about the Government’s plans to address that in the short term would be welcome.

In addition to the scaling up of testing, it is equally important that the Government take action to ensure that those who test positive are able to self-isolate. We are now two years into this pandemic. When will the Government finally introduce sick pay provisions so that people do not have to choose between isolation to prevent others getting the virus and putting food on the table or paying the rent?

In the immediate term, we need to see real leadership from the Government on alleviating the pressure currently placed on the National Health Service. An increasing number of trusts are declaring critical incidents. Greater Manchester has been forced to halt non-urgent surgery and the West Midlands Ambulance Service has asked retired workers to return. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what support is being offered to trusts which have declared critical incidents and what action is being taken to prevent others being in that position as well?

We cannot ignore that the NHS is struggling, not just because of the pandemic but because of a decade of mismanagement previously. We entered this pandemic with the longest waiting lists on record, and so we need to hear from the noble Baroness and the Government what action will be taken, and clear targets to reduce waiting lists and waiting times. Waiting for treatment or surgery when you are in pain or unable to work severely affects the nation’s mental as well as physical health. The Commons Health and Social Care Committee has warned that 6 million people are currently waiting for treatment, so can the noble Baroness say something about what assessment the Department of Health and Social Care has made on the impact on the mental health of patients of that uncertainty about getting the treatment or surgery required?

We are seeing now that progress is being made, but there is still some way to go before we can be confident that we can all be living that normal life again. The country cannot afford any further mismanagement or slow responses from the Government.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by expressing my support for the extraordinary work being done by NHS staff and all those—including pharmacies and volunteers—who are helping to make the booster programme such a success.

The decision to scrap the requirement for a PCR test following a positive lateral flow test clearly makes sense, given the delays which are regularly occurring both in sending out the PCR test and then in receiving the results of it. I know of cases where these waits have been of a week or longer, which has meant that they have not arrived until far too late to be of any use to the individuals concerned.

The new relaxed rules for travellers entering or re-entering the UK apply to those who are fully vaccinated, but this definition does not require people to have had the booster jab. Have the Government any plans to require a booster jab, not least to incentivise travellers to get the booster before they travel?

Despite the scale of the testing programme, there have been and remain serious delays in getting test kits to local pharmacies, schools and individuals. I repeat the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the Government’s current assessment of the ability of the supply chain to deliver the number of tests to fulfil the Government’s own targets.

Despite the Government’s support for Operation Moonshot—do people remember that?—to create a domestic production capacity, only one British manufacturer is making kits which meet UK standards. Others, as the noble Baroness said, are making kits which pass EU standards but not our own, and as a result they are exporting all their kits. What plans do the Government have to expedite approval of further UK manufacturers and reduce our dependency on kits made almost exclusively in China?

Can the Leader assure us that the Prime Minister, in his efforts to remove as many restrictions as possible, is not considering following the strategy of the United States by reducing isolation to five days without two negative lateral flow tests? There is considerable evidence that many people shed significant amounts of virus on days six and seven and later, making them still contagious and a threat to public health, so making any reduction would be dangerous.

It is clear that hospitals and ambulance services are struggling at the moment, with 24 critical incidents already declared and people with a possible heart attack being advised to get a taxi or a lift to hospital. The NHS was clearly underresourced to cope with a pandemic such as this, not least due to its having lost thousands of beds over the past decade. Can the Leader say what assessment is being made of the resilience and ability of our health services to deal with future pandemics?

It is clear that there will be further disruption for many school pupils who have yet to catch up on their studies following the closures over the last 18 months. Will the Government therefore expedite the catch-up programme and start by providing every parent with a £30 catch-up voucher for every day their child misses school?

The Prime Minister repeated the government injunction yesterday for people to

“carry on working from home whenever they can”.

I fear that the Government are not supporting their own policy when it comes to your Lordships’ House. I accept that we can legislate really effectively only when we are here in person, but we know that we can vote effectively from home. Next week, we are asking people to take journeys on public transport of up to five hours and more to sit in an office, often not even in the Palace itself, simply to vote. This poses a potential threat to them and their families. It has been argued that reverting to virtual voting would pose a reputational risk to the House. I believe the opposite, and anecdotal evidence supports that view. I hope that the commission will look at this again as a matter of urgency and that the noble Baroness the Leader will now support this sensible change.

COP 26

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, in line with the arrangements, the Statement made in the Commons yesterday is not repeated by the Leader, but I think most Members will have heard what the Prime Minister had to say in his enthusiasm for the agreement.

The world came together in Glasgow for what was the most important summit the UK has ever hosted. Future generations will look back on COP 26 as a time when we either met the moment or missed the opportunity. We add our thanks to all those involved in the organisation and planning of the summit—and to the residents of Glasgow, who, despite the disruption, welcomed visitors from all over the world into their city and their homes.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

Can you hear me?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

There seems to be some disruption; I do not know whether we are being haunted. If the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, could mute, that might be helpful—just on this occasion, I hasten to add.

This is the decisive decade for tackling the climate emergency. Although we better understand the seriousness of the issue, the real threat to progress is no longer denial but delay.

For film fans—bear with me on this—when Rick said the immortal words to Ilsa in “Casablanca”, “We’ll always have Paris”, he could not have imagined how apt they would be, 80 years later. The Paris summit in 2015 built an international alliance to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. The Prime Minister says in the Statement that COP 26 succeeded not just in keeping that 1.5 degrees target alive but in going further. I hope and want his optimism to be justified, but it feels more like the 1.5 degrees target is on life support. Meeting it would mean halving global emissions by 2030. The challenge for COP 26—so that we would always have Paris—was to close the gap between that aspiration and the reality of the pledges made. If Rick and Ilsa could do it, so can we. But did we?

We have to be honest about what has been achieved. Progress has been modest. We saw encouraging agreements on methane, deforestation, and the sales of petrol and diesel cars. Too often, however, the real delivery that will make a difference will come too late. According to the Climate Action Tracker, the pledges made at Glasgow for 2030, even if fully implemented, represent less than 25% of the ambition required. Rather than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees, we are now on track for a devastating 2.4 degrees rise. That is not just a number: it really matters. It could lead to billions of people facing extreme heatwaves, millions forced to leave their homes, and increased threats to both the natural wonders of the world and overall security. The Prime Minister kicked off the conference by saying that it was “one minute to midnight” on the doomsday clock. Can the Leader tell the House what time it is now, and whether we will still have Paris?

For years, coal has been the elephant in the room at these summits, so having an explicit reference in the agreement for the first time is really important. Who could not have been moved by Alok Sharma’s emotional reaction to that last-minute change to “phase down”? That really illustrates that hopes were cruelly dashed, despite the Prime Minister’s approval in the Statement. The raw emotion that we saw from Alok Sharma was also palpable among the Pacific Islanders. For many, climate change is genuinely existential, so even the announcement that 190 countries and organisations had agreed a timetable to end the use of coal does not bear scrutiny. Of those 190, only 46 were actually countries, of which 23 were new signatories and 10 do not even use coal. It is a coalition that includes NatWest and the national grid but not China, the United States or India.

There then came climate finance. It is a moral plight on developing nations that the 2009 commitment to provide $100 billion a year to emerging economies still has not been delivered; it will not be until 2023. That failure to deliver is self-defeating because it damages trust and prevents a high-ambition international coalition being built.

With his now typical overexuberance, the Prime Minister lauded the net-zero commitments made. Yet Saudi Arabia, for example, is still increasing oil production, despite its 2060 net-zero claim, and Australia will not even legislate for its 2050 net-zero target. We all know the importance of trade deals, but will the Leader explain why the Government dropped the Paris temperature commitment from the trade deal that we now have with Australia?

I had hoped that the Statement would refer to Thérèse Coffey’s welcome boast at the summit of the UK being

“the first country to legally require pension trustees to assess and publish the financial risks from climate change”.

I am sorry that it was not in the Statement, but the Leader of the House may recall that it was a Labour-led amendment in your Lordships’ House, supported across this House, that secured that historic commitment. We are pleased that we were able to be helpful, so that the Government could boast about that achievement at COP.

For the next 12 months, we have the COP presidency, and that gives us a key leadership responsibility. But the Government’s ability to step up and deliver is called into question by the Climate Change Committee’s recent report to Parliament, which said that the Government had been

“too slow to follow its climate promises with delivery”.

We cannot just put climate policy in a separate box: all government policies need to be linked to climate commitments, including trade deals. Yet Rishi Sunak’s Budget failed to mention climate change; it did not secure the necessary green investment, but it did give a tax break for domestic flights. That we were the only G7 country to cut overseas aid when seeking international co-operation on climate clearly damaged trust at COP.

When we wanted to focus on the summit issues and the climate emergency, many of us found it very difficult to watch the Prime Minister seeking to assure the world’s media that the UK was not corrupt, following his political shenanigans away from the summit. It was not exactly Mr Johnson’s finest hour.

Looking forward, I hope that the Leader is able to update us today on how Ministers can get a grip, reorder their priorities and invest in the green recovery. Can she give us an assurance that the net-zero test will be applied to all future decisions? Given what was said at COP 26, what is the Government’s renewed plan for phasing out fossil fuels, including rewriting the planning framework to rule out coal and say no to the Cambo oil field?

In conclusion, there was some welcome progress at COP 26 but it could have, and should have, achieved far more. Real action, not more rhetoric, must now follow, because the world just cannot wait any longer.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Prime Minister that those who thought that COP 26 would be a failure have been proved wrong. There were agreements on forests, methane, cars and finance, and there is undoubtedly some momentum among Governments and the private sector to move more quickly than previously.

Alok Sharma clearly worked extremely hard to achieve even more substantive progress, and he and his team deserve our thanks for all their efforts. By contrast, the Prime Minister seems to have played no concerted role at any point over the last two years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, his second visit to COP seemed to consist only of a press conference dominated by the question of whether the UK, under his watch, is now a corrupt country.

The Statement itself demonstrates the Prime Minister’s addiction to hyperbole. The world, he says, is “calling time on coal.” Really? When is that time? The declaration on coal is positive but, as it stands, is consistent with India and China continuing to use very large amounts of coal for decades ahead, decades which the world simply does not have. The Prime Minister says, we have

“ticked our boxes on cars, cash and trees.”

I fear that, for him, that is exactly what we have done: enough to enable him to claim that a success has been achieved, with no recognition that the agreements in these areas, although very welcome, are partial and will need continuing global pressure to achieve their stated goals.

As the dust settles on the conference, the key questions in every sector contributing to climate change are, “How do we build on the progress of COP 26?” and, “What role can the UK play?” I will concentrate on just three areas: finance, China, and the UK’s own carbon reduction strategy.

On finance, it is important that companies set targets and keep to them and that we do not facilitate the funding of climate-threatening activities. On the former, can the noble Baroness confirm what carbon reduction plans the UK will require companies listed in the UK to set in future, and what sanctions there will be to ensure that they are fulfilled? Does she agree that choking off finance for new fossil fuel exploration and development is potentially crucial? If so, will the Government commit to banning new stock exchange listings of fossil fuel companies and funds? Will the Government also press for a change in the capital adequacy rules, so that they reflect the climate change risks attached to lending by banks to fossil fuel companies? Does she accept that this could in effect price out the viability of such loans in future?

On China, the Prime Minister has expressed his frustration that they did not make further commitments at COP 26. He rightly accepts that he is not in a position to tell President Xi what to do, but there seems to have been a retreat in the diplomatic resources and effort put into climate change diplomacy, not just with China but globally. China’s stock has been weakened in the eyes of the island states, and much of the developing world, by their unwillingness to move more quickly. Surely this is something we should be tapping into via our Diplomatic Service to encourage those countries to put pressure on China, which in the past has so assiduously sought their votes at the UN and in other international bodies. Will the diplomatic resources devoted to climate change be increased to allow this to happen?

Domestically, the Government’s policy, despite the targets, is characterised by a lack of consistency and ambition. Will the Government now make it clear that they oppose any further coal or oil extraction in this country? Will they up their game on insulating homes and installing heat pumps? Will they give real impetus to developing working carbon capture and storage schemes, which have been promised for so long but not delivered? Will they stop doing counterproductive things, such as the reduction in air passenger duty?

The Prime Minister, quoting Aristotle in his Statement, says that

“virtue comes ... from habit and practice”

and implies that he favours virtue, at least in our approach to climate change. Will he therefore heed his own, or rather Aristotle’s, words, cut out the hyperbole and more assiduously practise what he preaches?

G20 and COP 26 World Leaders Summit

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made today in another place:

“Mr Speaker, with your permission I will make a Statement about the G20 summit in Rome and update the House on COP 26 in Glasgow. Almost 30 years ago, the world acknowledged the gathering danger of climate change and agreed to do what would once have been inconceivable and regulate the atmosphere of the planet itself by curbing greenhouse gas emissions. And one declaration succeeded another until, in Paris in 2015, we all agreed to seek to restrain the rise in world temperatures to 1.5 degrees centigrade. Now, after all the targets and the promises—and after yet more warnings from our scientists about the peril staring us in the face—we come to the reckoning.

This is the moment when we must turn words into action. If we fail, then Paris will have failed and every summit going back to Rio de Janeiro in 1992 will have failed, because we will have allowed our shared aim of 1.5 degrees to escape our grasp. Even half a degree of extra warming would have tragic consequences. If global temperatures were to rise by 2 degrees, our scientists forecast that we will lose virtually all the world’s coral reefs. The Great Barrier Reef and countless other living marvels would dissolve into an ever warmer and ever more acidic ocean, returning the terrible verdict that human beings lacked the will to preserve the wonders of the natural world.

And in the end it is a question of will. We have the technology to do what is necessary: all that remains in question is our resolve. The G20 summit convened by our Italian friends and COP 26 partners last weekend provided encouraging evidence that the political will exists, which is vital for the simple reason that the G20 accounts for 80% of the world economy and 75% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Britain was the first G20 nation to promise in law to wipe out our contribution to climate change by achieving net zero, and as recently as 2019 only one other member had made a comparable pledge. Today 18 countries in the G20 have made specific commitments to achieve net zero, and in the Rome declaration last Sunday every member acknowledged

‘the key relevance of achieving global net zero greenhouse gas emissions or carbon neutrality by or around mid-century’.

To that end, the G20, including China, agreed to stop financing new international unabated coal projects by the end of this year—a vital step towards consigning coal to history. And every member repeated their commitment to the Paris target of 1.5 degrees.

In a spirit of co-operation, the summit reached other important agreements. The G20 will levy a minimum corporation tax rate of 15%, ensuring that multinational companies make a fair contribution wherever they operate. Over 130 countries and jurisdictions have now joined this arrangement, showing what we can achieve together when the will exists.

The G20 adopted a target of vaccinating 70% of the world’s population against Covid by the middle of next year, and the UK is on track to provide 100 million doses to this effort. By the end of this year, we will have donated 30 million doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, and at least another 20 million will follow next year, along with 20 million doses of the Janssen vaccine ordered by the Government. And the G20 resolved to work together to ease the supply chain disruptions which have affected every member, as demand recovers and the world economy rises back to its feet.

I pay tribute to Prime Minister Mario Draghi for his expert handling of the summit. But everyone will accept that far more needs to be done to spare humanity from catastrophic climate change, and in the meantime global warming is already contributing to droughts, brushfires and hurricanes, summoning an awful vision of what lies ahead if we fail to act in the time that remains. So the biggest summit that the United Kingdom has ever hosted is now under way in Glasgow, bringing together 120 world leaders with the aim of translating aspirations into action to keep the ambition of 1.5 degrees alive. I am grateful to Glasgow City Council, Police Scotland, the police across the whole of the UK, and our public health bodies for making this occasion possible and for all their hard work.

For millions across the world, the outcome is literally a matter of life or death. For some island states in the Pacific and the Caribbean it is a question of national survival. The negotiations in Glasgow have almost two weeks to run but we can take heart from what has been achieved so far. Nations which together comprise 90% of the world economy are now committed to net zero, up from 30% when the UK took the reins of COP. Yesterday alone, the United States and over 100 other countries agreed to cut their emissions of methane—one of the most destructive greenhouse gases—by 30% by 2030. And 122 countries, with over 85% of the world’s forests, agreed to end and reverse deforestation by the same deadline, backed by the greatest-ever commitment of public funds to this cause, which I hope will trigger even more from the private sector.

India has agreed to transform her energy system to derive half of her power from renewable sources, keeping a billion tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere. The UK has doubled our commitment to international climate finance to £11.6 billion and we will contribute another £1 billion if the economy grows as forecast. We have launched our clean green initiative, which will help the developing world to build new infrastructure in an environmentally friendly way, and we will invest £3 billion of public money to unlock billions more from the private sector.

The UK has asked the world for action on coal, cars, cash and trees, and we have begun to make progress—substantial, palpable progress—on three out of four. But the negotiations in Glasgow have a long way to go and far more must be done. Whether we can summon the collective wisdom and will to save ourselves from an avoidable danger still hangs in the balance, and we will press on with the hard work until the last hour. I commend this Statement to the House.”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement to the House. Ten months ago, in his new year message, the Prime Minister, with his usual optimistic rhetoric, declared that with the G7, COP and other global summits ahead of us, 2021 would be

“an amazing moment for this country.”

Yet as the winter nights draw in, I am sure that I am not the only one who feels that perhaps Mr Johnson overpromised and has not made the most of the available opportunities. As world leaders leave Glasgow, we all want COP 26 to be a success. You could say that we need it to be a success. The G20 could have been a springboard for the agreement that we need.

The noble Baroness is right, therefore, to tell the House that two weeks of COP remain, but Ministers cannot rely on warm words alone to deliver the outcome that we all need. On the climate crisis, Covid recovery and much more, it increasingly feels as if the Government are exposed and do not have a plan, despite their promises and commitments. While I appreciate the Minister’s frankness in saying that there is far more to be done, I implore the Prime Minister to use this moment—it is just a brief moment of opportunity—to show real leadership and, more importantly, the direction that is needed.

The Rome G20 started in much the same way as the G7 earlier this year, with Mr Johnson yet again, unfortunately, distracted by ongoing issues relating to the botched Brexit deal. The small steps agreed in Sunday’s communiqué are welcome, and I cannot emphasise enough that we want COP to succeed. Judging, however, by the Statement—if I have understood correctly from listening carefully to the noble Baroness—it is not entirely clear that even the Prime Minister is sure about what was agreed in Rome. Page 1 of my copy of the Statement says:

“We all agreed to seek to restrain the rise in world temperatures to 1.5 degrees centigrade”.


On page 2 it has been downgraded from an agreement to a “shared aim”. By page 3 it is back to “a commitment” on a target, while by page 4 it is downgraded again to an “aspiration” or an “ambition”. Either the Prime Minister is confused or he has someone writing his Statement with a thesaurus to hand.

Together, the G20 nations represent 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions. As the noble Baroness understands, the world is reliant on their actions towards net zero. If they fail, it will be the small developing countries that pay the price. That is why we need a plan for implementation, whatever the word used for it. I did not hear a plan, strategy or road map today. Where is the plan?

Can the noble Baroness confirm whether the Prime Minister personally advocated for a 2050 net-zero date in the communiqué, or was he satisfied with the inclusion of “around mid-century”? Given the Government’s own record on new coal mines and oil exploration in the UK, did our domestic policy undermine our ability to negotiate a stronger line? The noble Baroness may recall that the FCDO previously announced a climate diplomacy fund to prepare for the summit. Can she update the House on how that money has been spent? I am happy for her to write to me if she is unable to answer today.

On international development, we are grateful to the G20 for reiterating that the consequences of climate change are already being felt by the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. But, as much as I welcome the acknowledgement in the Prime Minister’s Statement of the impact on important coral reefs, I would like to have heard more about the devastating and deadly human impact of our collective failure to act. But given the Government’s attitude to development aid and the cuts made, perhaps we should not be surprised. I wonder whether other countries raised this with Mr Johnson, especially those that have seen the pandemic as a reason to increase international aid.

On a similar note—again, I am happy for the noble Baroness to write to me if she cannot answer this—she will be aware that the Chancellor recently announced that the IMF’s special drawing rights will now be reclassified as international aid. This might sound like an accounting dodge, but it is important: it means that millions of pounds of support to developing countries will be lost. Given that the UK is the only major donor to do this, can she explain why the Government have taken this route?

On Covid vaccinations, for much of the developing world, the threat from the climate crisis is rivalled only by Covid-19. According to Amnesty International, while 63% of people in G20 countries are vaccinated, the figure in low- and lower-middle income countries is just 10%. We welcome the G20’s commitment, as previously agreed by the World Health Organization, to vaccinating 70% of the world’s population by the middle of next year. But, again, we come back to the plan: there is a lack of clarity about how this will be achieved.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to read the 10-point plan to produce and distribute vaccinations globally produced by the Labour Party. She might find it helpful. But can she outline for us the Government’s plan which backs up the commitments made?

On a note of optimism, the rubber-stamping of the global minimum corporation tax could pave the way for a fairer global tax system. But we come back to the issue of the plan: this is still a long way from implementation. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether the legislation has been drafted to give effect to this commitment? What steps are our representatives taking to develop the accompanying global framework at the OECD? The proposal represents an opportunity to build a new economy in the aftermath of the pandemic, but we also must take a lead in responding to the more immediate threats of rising inflation and the shortages we have seen. The noble Baroness may recall—although she may not be aware—that in the wake of the 2008 financial crash, the Labour Government, led by Gordon Brown, put forward a global plan to limit the damage and pave the way for recovery. That is the kind of leadership the UK needs and should provide again.

It is all very well, and is to be admired, for the Government to have aims, ambitions, and targets, and to work with others to secure commitments. But, coming back to my central point, unless there is a plan or detailed strategy to turn those commitments into reality, it is just warm words. If the Leader answers just one question today, can she tell us: where is the plan?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. Before I move on to COP 26, perhaps I might ask her a couple of questions about the G20 announcements.

First, the PM highlights the target of vaccinating 70% of the world’s population against Covid by the middle of next year. He then boasts about the fact that the UK is providing 100 million doses towards this effort, of which 70 million will have been donated by the end of 2022. Can the noble Baroness confirm that to date only 5 million doses have been delivered? Does she accept that, given the overall numbers required to meet the target, which the PM supports, run into several billions, just under 70 million doses from the UK by the middle of next year is simply inadequate? The WHO estimates that some 82 countries are at risk of missing the target, so will the UK be more ambitious and commit to increasing the number of vaccines it provides, so the target might stand a chance of being met?

The Prime Minister highlights the resolve of the G20 to work together to ease supply chain disruption. The declaration from Rome simply makes that statement with no hint of what the leaders intend to do about the problem. Can the noble Baroness explain what international action is planned and whether the Government intend to make any proposals to their G20 partners on how to resolve these problems? In relation to supply problems in the UK, could she update the House on the number of HGV drivers from the EU who have taken up the Government’s offer to work in the UK for the next two months? I think the last published figure was 27. Has it increased? On the assumption that we have not seen any significant increase in driver numbers, what assurances can she give that there will not be further disruption to the supply of presents and food in the run-up to Christmas?

On COP 26 and climate change, the agreements announced in Glasgow on deforestation and methane are very welcome. But does the noble Baroness accept that without the active participation of China in such programmes, and the general unwillingness of China to set targets commensurate with meeting the 1.5 degree target, the chances of hitting that target are remote. To date, the Government do not appear to have any strategy, working with like-minded international partners, of putting effective pressure on China. Does the noble Baroness accept that unless such pressure is brought to bear and there is further movement from China, COP 26 cannot result in a successful outcome?

Today’s announcement on sustainable finance is potentially extremely significant, because if it becomes more difficult for firms in the coal- and carbon-intensive manufacturing sectors to finance new projects, many of these projects simply will not happen. More generally, the announcement by many global firms and financial institutions that they will align their investment and lending with the Paris climate goals could, if executed, do more than anything else to reorient the world economy towards a net-zero model. But the track record of companies which have made such commitments in the past is not encouraging. In a number of high-profile cases, banks which have promised, for example, to divest themselves of fossil fuel investments have broken the rules which they set for themselves; and they have not applied the rules at all to some asset classes. What legal requirements do the Government plan to place on companies and financial institutions listed in London, or based in the UK, to set net-zero plans? What sanctions will apply if they either fail to set them in the first place or, having set them, simply fail to implement them?

At the weekend the Prime Minister said that the score was 5-1 against the chances of Glasgow succeeding. Yesterday he claimed that the forces of climate action had pulled back a goal, or possibly two. The fact this Government have allowed the score to get to 5-1 against is a telling indictment of the casual way they have approached this summit. Failure over the next few days to change the scoreline further would be a disaster not just for the Government but for the planet.

Tributes: Sir David Amess MP

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Lords Chamber

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

Like all noble Lords, I was shocked, shaken and saddened by the tragic death of Sir David Amess on Friday. He was killed while holding a constituency surgery in a place of sanctuary, serving the residents of Southend West as he had done proudly since 1997. As the Lord Speaker said, Sir David was a veteran parliamentarian of almost four decades who was admired and respected across both Houses of Parliament. Only three other sitting MPs have served the House of Commons and their constituents longer than Sir David had.

A working-class boy from the east end of London, Sir David was first elected in Basildon, in 1983. It was a bellwether seat for the 1992 general election which he held on to with the backing of Essex men—and women—providing the pivotal moment of the night that Sir John Major won an unexpected majority. At the 1997 general election, Sir David moved to the neighbouring constituency of Southend West, and our very own Lady Smith followed him as the MP for Basildon. She tells me that she soon discovered that one of Sir David’s traditions was giving students a spelling test on primary school visits. Apparently, he had a preoccupation with two words in particular, and the local schools had posters of them plastered all over the walls to ensure that their students were ready to impress their visiting MP. I understand that there is a certain cohort, educated in south Essex, who have Sir David to thank for being able to spell “yacht” and “unnecessary” correctly.

In his new seat, Sir David continued his tradition of campaigning in a motorhome, playing his song, which I assure noble Lords I will not attempt to sing but which went:

“Vote, vote, vote, for David Amess,

David is the man for you.

If you want to be true blue, and to air your points of view,

Then David Amess is the only man for you.”

Although his campaign style was compared to that of an ice-cream vendor, it was authentically Sir David, and it worked.

Throughout his parliamentary career, he was well known as a dedicated Brexiteer, a doughty animal rights campaigner, a devout Roman Catholic and a devoted constituency champion. It is true to say that he achieved more on the Beck Benches than many of us Ministers manage to achieve in government; he piloted numerous Private Member’s Bills into law, such as those on cruel tethering and warm homes, helped to ensure that the bravery of Raoul Wallenberg was recognised with a memorial statue, and organised 200 inspirational students from the Music Man Project to perform at the Royal Albert Hall and again at the London Palladium.

There cannot be anyone in this House who is not aware of Sir David’s campaign to make Southend a city, a campaign that he pursued doggedly and determinedly, but with the humour and warmth that characterised his approach, because above all, he was a kind, generous and decent human being. I am delighted to tell the House, if noble Lords did not know already, that the Prime Minister has confirmed that Her Majesty the Queen has agreed that Southend will be accorded the city status that it so clearly deserves.

I was not lucky enough to have known Sir David well personally. However, from the stories that I have read from colleagues, friends and strangers over the weekend, it is clear that he was a wonderful man who touched the lives of many. So many colleagues have commented on his love of being a parliamentarian. Whether in the House or in his beloved constituency, he had as much joy and enthusiasm in his fourth decade in the job as he did in his first, and that enthusiasm was infectious to all with whom he served. A former colleague of mine from Policy Exchange, who began his career working for Sir David, shared what many have commented was an accurate reflection of his character: not being bothered about missing or even returning a call from David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, yet turning his office upside down to find a missing local charity invitation for a duck race, and moving heaven and earth at all hours of the day for constituents in need.

My husband, James, joined the House of Commons following the last election, and experienced Sir David’s generosity of friendship first-hand. They spent some time together recently, during lockdown, discussing Sir David’s new book, Ayes & Ears, as part of his virtual book tour. Said with great humour and a big smile, it is fair to say that Sir David’s opening line of “Now then, James, someone told me that you sleep with a member of the Cabinet” was not the introduction that James was expecting. In his book, Sir David asked how someone like him, born into relative poverty and with no great political helping hand, became a Conservative Member of Parliament.

The many thousands of people that he helped, and the causes that he supported, will be for ever grateful that he made that journey from those humble beginnings in Plaistow. As would be expected from Sir David, the proceeds office book will go to three charities whose causes he consistently championed: Endometriosis UK, Prost8 and the Music Man Project.

I stand here today not just as the Leader of this House but as the wife of an MP. I see the vital work they do day in, day out, on the front line to help some of the most vulnerable people in society: listening and offering support, and speaking up for those without a voice, all to serve the people in their constituencies, regardless of how they voted. Of course, for many of your Lordships here today, that was your daily reality when you served in the other place.

Alongside Jo Cox, we now have had the horror of two MPs in the last five years killed while doing their jobs—simply serving their constituents, as they were elected to do. One of our own colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, was badly injured and his aide Andrew Pennington killed in a horrific act of violence. Any attack on any parliamentarian is an attack on our democracy. All of us, across both Houses, across all parties and groups, stand together in condemnation of these senseless and callous attacks. It is right that the security measures in place for MPs are reviewed, but we cannot allow these dreadful events to break the close link between MPs and their constituents which is so central to our democracy.

It has been a devastating week for our party, our Parliament and our country, with the loss first of our dear friend James Brokenshire, and now of the much-loved Sir David Amess—both men taken from us too soon and with so much more to give. But today, I know I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that our deepest sympathies are with Sir David’s family, friends and staff, especially his wife Julia and their five children. We have lost a dedicated public servant and a colleague, but they have lost a husband and a father. I hope they can find some comfort in our admiration and respect for the most decent of men.

Sir David’s family have called on everyone to set aside their differences and show kindness and love to all—something we should all reflect on. I know that there are many noble Lords who wish to speak today who had the honour of knowing Sir David much better than me. I look forward to learning more about him from them, but I have no doubt that we can all learn from Sir David’s example of compassion, kindness and public service.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the whole House welcomed the noble Baroness’s very emotional, genuine and fond tribute to Sir David.

As the news unfolded on Friday that Sir David Amess had been attacked, our hope that he had not been seriously hurt was mixed with that dreadful feeling we had in the pit of our stomachs that something deeply shocking and terrible had happened. When it was confirmed that he had not survived, it was hard to find the words to convey our feelings about this act of devastating horror.

We send our deepest and heartfelt condolences to Sir David’s wife Julia, their children, their wider family, and his many friends and colleagues. Their loss is profound and overwhelming. We also feel for the staff who were with him at the time; the emotional shock that they suffered will be deeply felt for a long time.

I also take this opportunity, as the noble Baroness did, to express our sadness and condolences on the death of another Conservative MP, James Brokenshire. It is a cruel connection that James also had strong Essex links, having been born in Southend and previously represented Hornchurch. As she said, both men have left us too soon and had so much more to give.

I first met Sir David Amess in 1983, when he famously achieved that remarkable victory that many thought impossible: winning the newly drawn parliamentary constituency of Basildon, where there was not a single Conservative councillor. At the time, I was living in Southend and working for the League Against Cruel Sports. David was one of the then small group from his party strongly supporting our campaign to ban fox hunting and hare-coursing. He remained passionately committed to the welfare of animals; indeed, his recent, final comments in Parliament—though none of us knew they would be so—were to urge for debate on animal welfare.

Over the years, our paths criss-crossed in Basildon, Southend and Westminster—and, just occasionally, on the same side of an issue. Leaving Basildon for Southend was both painful and an opportunity for him. As with everything else, he embraced his new constituency with enthusiasm, commitment and genuine affection, which, as has been clear from the responses of his constituents, was warmly reciprocated.

Health and Social Care

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, yesterday we saw in the House of Commons quite an extraordinary sight. The very day after an outlined policy announcement on social care, the Government rushed through a vote for a 10% increase in national insurance contributions that will not even be used for that purpose until 2023.

There is a no doubt that addressing social care is a critical and complex issue, and one that is expensive to address. However, what we heard in the Prime Minister’s Statement was not the oven-ready plan he promised two years ago. The danger for the Prime Minister—and, unfortunately, for the country—is that this now feels like an impetuous decision made for political reasons when there are so many who are willing to work across parties, professions and interests to find a consensual way forward. Despite the usual hyperbole, we did not hear a plan for dealing with a system crumbling under strain; nor did we hear a guarantee that this money will go into social care.

Despite this measure being flagged as a social care policy, the Prime Minister announced that, for at least the next three years, the bulk of the money raised by the levy will be spent on the NHS to “clear the waiting list backlog”. Yet the Secretary of State for Health seemed very uncertain that this would work. Waiting lists were already at record highs even before the pandemic struck, and our health and social care services had been left weakened and exposed when the virus hit.

Where would that leave both the NHS and social care services? To me, this feels just a bit too close to the Prime Minister’s Brexit bus tactics. Remember: Brexit was going to deliver £350 million a week to the National Health Service. Already, care sector experts and leaders are critical of using the NHS as a political fig leaf to break a manifesto commitment and make the introduction of a deeply controversial tax palatable, as well as using it to cover up many mismanagements and misjudgments during the handling of the pandemic. If the Prime Minister’s tactic of a rushed vote was to avoid scrutiny, it has failed. On an issue of this magnitude, scrutiny is essential. It is not just about holding the Government to account; it is about trying to get the best policy outcomes.

At the election, the Government promised to ensure that no one needing care would have to sell their home to pay for it. Can the Minister repeat that commitment today? The cap benefits those who live in the most expensive parts of the country or have the most expensive houses, but someone who has a house worth £100,000, for example, will still have to pay £86,000 for their care, even with the cap. That cap does not include the associated care home living costs, which are not covered by the cap and often far exceed the personal care costs of residential care.

The Chancellor’s explanation yesterday, which I hope that Minister will not attempt today, was that people needing to raise money for care need not sell their homes while they are still alive because they can get a loan that is then repaid when their estate is sold after their death. That is nothing new. Deferred payments were already available. Did anyone really think that this was what the Government’s promise of not selling homes meant?

I think that most people understand that good services cost money, but it is the unfairness of these tax rises that is wrong, especially with the lack of a proper plan or guarantees. Two and a half million working families face a double whammy: a national insurance tax rise and a £1,000 per year universal credit cut which even the Government’s own analysis has said will have a catastrophic impact. So many of those who kept us going through the pandemic—the medical teams, the care workers, the shop workers, the cleaners, some of the lowest paid workers—will be paying more, but they are the ones who will benefit the least.

The Government have not listened to warnings or proposed alternatives for supporting social care, nor have they addressed the rising demand. Conservative Governments in the years prior to the pandemic have cut the social care budget by £8 billion. At present nearly 300,000 people are on local authority waiting lists for adult social care services in England because of the funding pressures and delays in assessments for social workers. Yet we heard absolutely nothing yesterday about the role of local government. It would be helpful if the Minister could say how much funding will be provided to support local government in delivering social care. She must understand that despite being on the front line, it is concerned that the NHS will absorb the extra money and that the social care allocation will be swallowed up by the cap costs.

The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has said that a chronic shortage of care workers means that more than one in 10 people assessed as needing care in their own homes were instead offered care in residential facilities, often against their own wishes. This is a stark reminder of why we need the investment now. A well-thought-out plan would, as we have repeatedly said, involve a real reform of services that allows people who wish to do so to stay in their homes for longer. There is nothing in the Prime Minister’s Statement about how we use technology, how we improve home adaptations, how we build and adapt more lifetime homes and how we support care workers. Can the Minister tell us whether there has been any engagement with charities and campaigners who deal with these issues every day of their lives, with the national forum, with policy makers, with service users or with carers?

It is a huge frustration that the long-promised White Paper on reforming social care and integrating it with healthcare has again been kicked into the long grass. All Ministers have said is that it will be published later this year. Would it not have been logical—a response to this would be appreciated—to publish the White Paper, set a timetable to consult and then discuss and engage in order to provide a transformative plan that includes how we support an army of unpaid family carers, how we ensure that working-age adults with disabilities have more control over their lives and how we tackle the workforce crisis and support care workers? Instead, we have an unfair funding plan, no reforms and no guarantees.

None of us underestimates the scale of the challenge this issue presents in funding and providing the proper services the country needs. Unfortunately, the fear now is that in the Government’s rush, they have missed that opportunity to seize the real prize for the British people. There is a better way to do this.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, according to the Prime Minister, the package of proposals in this Statement represents

“a project of our era equivalent to the creation of the NHS and the welfare state.”

How, then, do the proposals measure up to this challenging claim?

Taking the spending side first, the Statement covers three separate but related areas. First, there is the implementation, at last, of something like the Dilnot proposals for placing a cap on the contribution that individuals need to make towards their social care. This principle was legislated for by the coalition in 2014 and its implementation is long overdue. Secondly, the Government are making a major investment of about £10 billion per annum for the next three years in the NHS to deal with the backlog of elective procedures. Undoubtedly this is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. Yesterday, the Prime Minister failed to give any assurances about the rate at which the backlog of procedures would be reduced. Can the Minister today give any further indication of timescale on this?

Thirdly, the Government claim to be making more resources available to state-funded social care beyond Dilnot. This is arguably the most pressing problem of all, with 112,000 vacancies, massive staff turnover rates and providers teetering on the edge of financial viability. Sadly, the Statement was almost silent on the substance. Instead, all details about the future of social care are yet again pushed back into the long-promised White Paper, for which no publication date has been set, as the noble Baroness pointed out. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no immediate increase at all in funds available for social care, not a penny? If so, how does she expect care homes and domiciliary care providers to survive over the coming months? Over the whole three-year period covered by the Statement, exactly how much additional central government funding will flow into adult social care provision unrelated to the Dilnot reforms, bearing in mind that the current annual cash shortfall is somewhere in the range of £6 billion to £14 billion?

After the first three years, the proceeds of the levy are supposed to go increasingly towards social care. However, given that, on the basis of previous experience, overall NHS spending in future is likely to be greater than that currently budgeted for, there will undoubtedly be pressure for this additional level of NHS funding to continue, even after the pandemic catch-up is more or less complete. What assurance can the Government give that over the medium term, the bulk of the revenue raised by the levy will go to social care, as promised? When later this year does the Minister expect the White Paper to be produced? We have heard so many assurances that it is almost here, nearly here or will soon be here. We are a bit sceptical.

The Government document states that they want to

“make care work a more rewarding vocation”.

How will these announcements allow care providers and local authorities to increase the wages of the many thousands of care workers stuck on zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage? Do the Government really believe that offering a few training courses will solve the recruitment and retention problem in this sector? The Government say that they will

“ensure that the 5.4 million unpaid carers have the support and respite that they need”.

How much additional funding over the next three years will now be available to fulfil this promise?

The Government say that they will move towards equalising the amount paid by self-funders and those funded by local authorities. Do they plan to do this by reducing the amount paid by self-funders or by increasing the amount paid by local authorities? If it is the latter, where will the money come from?

I turn to the new hypothecated health and social care levy. Many people are indignant that a major manifesto promise has been broken, but why are they surprised? For this Prime Minister, a promise is not a binding commitment; it is simply a holding position, until it becomes easier to do something else. More surprising than a broken promise is that the Treasury has agreed to introduce a hypothecated tax—something that it normally never countenances, because of all the inflexibilities that it brings. Why has a new, unprecedented, hypothecated tax been introduced here? The obvious reason is that the Government know that they will have ever-growing demands for future spending in health and social care, for which tax rises will be required, and they see this tax as a vehicle for doing that in future. Can the noble Baroness confirm that, for this Parliament at least, there will be no more increases in the levy?

All in all, does this Statement amount—as the Prime Minister claims—to the equivalent for our age as the creation of the NHS and the welfare state? For those trying to run a care home, act as an unpaid carer or subsist on a minimum income, such a boast will ring hollow. Beveridge, Attlee and Bevan must be turning in their graves.

Afghanistan

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, just so there is no confusion, the Lord Privy Seal has not repeated the Statement; we have to rely on having heard the Prime Minister say it. I am a little disappointed that the Statement is being considered at the end of business today, given the importance of this issue. The Government made two Statements in the House of Commons; I had expected them to be repeated between the two Second Readings and was somewhat surprised this morning to find that they were so late, as it may affect the number of Members who are able to take part.

Having watched the very distressing evacuation scenes, I think we all have nothing but praise for the heroic work of the British troops, our diplomats and our civil servants, who were operating in incredibly difficult circumstances. They were having to manage a chaotic situation, following a series of failures and miscalculations by the Government. It was interesting that the Prime Minister’s Statement referred to them facing “every possible challenge”; it must be said, one of those challenges was a failure of political leadership, being utterly unprepared for what was to come. That withdrawal had been more than 18 months in the making, but the Government were unprepared, had been unwilling to plan and seemed unable to take a lead. Even in those final weeks before the fall of Kabul, Mr Raab failed to speed up evacuation efforts, failed to issue warnings to British nationals and failed to prepare the department’s crisis response. Even when he gave evidence to the Select Committee, he was rather hazy on the numbers of those, both Afghans and UK citizens, who have been left behind.

The Government have previously said that it was not realistic to stay beyond the US deadline. I think we all accept that, but I have put this question to the noble Baroness—I see she is taking note of what I am saying— I think twice before on previous Statements: what representations did the Government and Ministers make, mainly to the Americans but also others, on the management and timescale of the withdrawal? I am not clear about this and am trying really hard to get to the bottom of it: did the Government ever go back and say to the Americans and NATO, “This will be terrible under this timescale. It will be a disaster. We understand that you are moving US troops out, but can we reconsider how it is done?”

In the final days, as the Taliban entered the city, both Mr Raab and Mr Johnson—the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—were away on holiday. I am not against Ministers taking holidays—we all need holidays—but there is an issue here of timing and priorities. We know that this is a Government clearly out of their depth, but those chaotic final days of the UK’s role in Afghanistan should not be allowed to undermine in any way the achievements of the past 20 years. The sacrifice of British veterans was not in vain. Their incredible efforts with allied forces facilitated stability and progress throughout Afghanistan, and we should all be proud of their service.

Unfortunately, recent events have opened up old wounds for veterans across the UK. The Government must recognise this and allocate the essential resources and establish the right support structures for them. I say to the noble Baroness, I welcome the additional funding announcement, albeit overdue, but that must sit alongside a strategy to confront the structural barriers that veterans are facing in the employment market, in healthcare and in their daily lives. It would be helpful if she could now confirm whether the Office for Veterans’ Affairs will still face a 40% cut in its budget this year. There must also be recognition for the more than 1,000 UK personnel who took part in Operation Pitting, which airlifted 15,000 people as the country fell to the Taliban. Unfortunately, as she may be aware, troops are not eligible to receive medals as this mission did not meet the 30-day service rule. I think most of us feel that, in these specific and special circumstances, surely that convention should be waived and we should reward the heroic efforts of troops who took part in Operation Pitting.

With the airlift now over, the focus must shift to the lifelong support that we can offer to those Afghans who worked side by side with our troops. I am disappointed that the Government still have not outlined the full details of the Afghans citizens resettlement scheme. We look forward to receiving them. Many of those evacuated are still uncertain and in the dark about their immediate future, let alone their medium- and long-term future. Can the Leader of the House outline when the resettlement scheme will begin and how many people are expected to join it? Can she also say something about how many evacuated Afghans are currently being housed in hotels and other temporary accommodation and how many have been moved into permanent or semi-permanent accommodation? Given that councils—I cite Greenwich Council—have already written to the Government asking for help in supporting refugees and are trying to do their best, what support has been made available to local authorities?

As we look to Afghanistan’s future, we cannot abandon those who have been unable to escape. The Government have to explore all opportunities to support the establishment of viable and safe routes for those who are now in danger. The PM said in his Statement:

“We will insist on safe passage for anyone who wishes to leave”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/21; col. 22.]


I want to probe what “insist” means. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that the Taliban had offered assurances in this area, but he could not expand on that. It would be helpful if the Leader could say tonight what assurances have been received and what degree of confidence the Government have in those assurances.

We also have to confront the reality of the impending humanitarian crisis, where 40% of the crops have been lost through drought. While funding is important, efforts need to be made—perhaps the Leader could say more about this as well—to ensure that food and life-saving medicines are allowed into the country.

On security, human rights and many other issues, the UK needs to work with other countries and NATO to craft a clear diplomatic road map that seeks to protect the gains of the past 20 years. I am thinking specifically, but not exclusively, about the progress on the rights of women and girls. I am sure that, like me, the Leader has seen distressing accounts over the past few days of how women peacefully protesting the basic rights that those of us in this House take for granted have been met with aggression and violence. The efforts of the UK at the UN to secure a Security Council resolution are welcome, but they have to be followed up with prime ministerial intervention. What is the UK’s plan for ensuring that the Taliban are held to their word? What did the Prime Minister agree during his meeting with Secretary-General Guterres? Does he have any plans to continue to engage with the P5 on the implementation of the resolution that was passed at the meeting?

We cannot allow Afghanistan to be a safe haven for terrorism again and neither can we sit by as the Taliban tear down the basic rights that the Afghan people have enjoyed. The Government’s incompetence has let down the Afghan people who have so bravely worked alongside our personnel for two decades. That incompetence also puts us in danger. The security implications of recent weeks are grave and long-lasting and we cannot afford to ignore the risks that we now face. The humanitarian crisis, the displacement of people and the proliferation of extremism can now grow in Afghanistan. While our response should be driven by the need to help the Afghan people, we must also understand that a failure to do that for them will endanger us all.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the Prime Minister’s commendation of the courage and ingenuity of everybody involved in the Kabul airlift. It was indeed the most impressive achievement.

This is a remarkably thin Statement. It does not contain any new facts or commitments to the people of Afghanistan, either in the UK or in Afghanistan. In terms of Afghans who want to come to the UK, in the Statement the Prime Minister repeated two promises: first, that for those to whom we have already made commitments, we will do our best to honour them; and, secondly, that beyond that we will work with the UN and other aid agencies to identify those we should help, as well as

“Afghans who have contributed to civil society or who face particular risk”

because they have stood up

“for democracy and human rights or because of their gender, sexuality or religion”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/21; col. 22.]

I support those commitments, but fear that the first is unachievable in the foreseeable future and that the second offers false hope to many thousands of people. The first is unachievable because we have no means to get people who have a right to come to the UK out of the country. They cannot fly out, and many of the border crossings are, in effect, closed to them. To echo the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, how much confidence do the Government have that the Taliban will give those people safe passage? Do they even know how many of them there are? How are they planning, in the absence of any diplomatic presence in the country, to facilitate their departure?

On the second commitment, the number of people in the categories which the Government wish to help runs into the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. How does the Government’s commitment to welcoming them into the UK square with their absolute limit of 5,000 refugees over the coming year? How will they decide who to prioritise when confronted with such large numbers of people who they say are technically eligible for visas and who are desperate, for their own safety, to leave the country now, not at some point over the next five years? The Government’s response to requests to take more than the 5,000 is that it is beyond the country’s capacity to do so. This claim does not withstand scrutiny. Even the Prime Minister accepts that the Government are inundated with offers of help from charities and ordinary citizens, and the Government appear to be doing nothing to require the large number of local authorities which are not offering to take a single refugee to play their part. Will they do so now? The fact is that the 5,000 one-year cap and the longer-term 20,000 cap have nothing to do with need. They are, frankly, the minimum that the Government think they can get away with, and they should do better.

The Prime Minister says that the UK will use

“every economic, political and diplomatic lever to protect our own countries from harm and to help the Afghan people.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/21; col. 22.]

Again, that is a positive statement, but what does it amount to? On economic support through development aid, how do the Government intend to ensure that funds can be channelled in an effective way? How closely are they working with the UNDP, which seems to be developing pragmatic working relations with the Taliban? Will they make the disbursement of aid funds contingent on the Taliban keeping its promises; for example, in respect of safe passage or human rights?

On political and diplomatic levers, it is good to see the Foreign Secretary engaging—at last—with the Qatari and Pakistani Governments. In his Statement, the Foreign Secretary sets out some of the issues he discussed in those meetings, but not the outcomes. Can the Leader give the House any specific examples of action that will flow from that series of meetings?

In relation to dealing with the Taliban Administration, the Government say that they will now engage with them, which I am sure is the right approach, and they have appointed a non-resident chargé d’affaires in Doha. While that is welcome, it must surely be desirable to work towards re-establishing a physical diplomatic presence in Kabul. There are clearly challenges in doing so, but to what extent are the Government working with other western Governments, who also need to re-establish their position in Afghanistan, to facilitate that? Have they, for example, spoken to the EU, which is looking to set up a single diplomatic presence in Kabul? There will surely be administrative and security benefits in co-locating with such an office. Are the Government considering that possibility?

More generally, the Afghan debacle has shown the need for the UK to recalibrate its whole foreign policy stance and, in particular, to rebuild relations with the US, through NATO, and with the EU. The Statement is silent on these larger issues, but, frankly, until we address them, much of the micromanagement of the next phase of our involvement with Afghanistan is bound to be more difficult to deliver, making it more difficult for us to deliver on the promises that the Government have already made to the people of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, before I start, I concur with the Lord Speaker’s and the Lord Privy Seal’s comments about the tragic and terrible events that we saw in Plymouth. I also place on record our sadness at the loss of our two colleagues, Lord Smith and Viscount Simon.

Deep in my heart, I keep telling myself that I have done nothing bad. I might face consequences, but I guess that is the price that we pay for trying to make the world a little better. Those brave and understated comments in an interview by Rangina Hamidi, the Afghan Education Minister, who spoke for women and girls across Afghanistan and for all those who spoke out and fought against the Taliban and for human rights and democracy, that they now fear for their future, and even their lives, shames us. The confidence and courage shown by Rangina and other women who stepped forward to play such important roles in civic life—in politics, education, medicine and business—have now been replaced by dread and fear.

I welcome that Parliament has been recalled following these shocking and tragic events, but the scale and the urgency of this tragedy, this catastrophe, means that it should have been sooner. The urgency with which our Government, with others, need to act is desperately evident. As disturbing news emerged of the Taliban’s staggering advances, it was clear that the predictions of those responsible for this exit strategy were not just wildly optimistic but devastatingly wrong. With the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both on holiday as Taliban militants entered Kabul, it seems that, even in these final hours, they were oblivious to the unfolding catastrophe.

To fail to prepare for even the possibility of a swift Taliban resurgence is a strategic failure of historic proportions. There is no doubt that, as western forces withdrew on such a hard deadline, Afghan confidence and spirit crumbled as the Taliban seized the obvious opportunities. As recently as 8 July, during questions on his Statement, our Prime Minister committed to maintaining the British embassy in Kabul. That commitment lasted just a few short weeks. Having bravely sought to rebuild their country, the reality now is a cruel and tragic situation for the people in Afghanistan.

We must pay tribute to the work of our military over the past 20 years, including the Members and staff of this place and the other House. It is a mistake to view our military presence since 2001 only as a failure, but it will clearly now be overshadowed by a withdrawal that has returned Afghanistan to chaos. Our military ensured that the people of Afghanistan enjoyed freedoms and rights that seemed a distant prospect two decades ago. They made a difference. Critical advances were made in denying terrorists a safe haven, in supporting the building of the institutions needed in the country, in the training and support of the Afghan military forces and, so importantly, in supporting the advancement of women’s and girls’ education and their rights in society.

As we have heard, that progress came at a high price: 457 of our service men and women lost their lives, and many thousands more and their families continue to endure physical and mental injury. More than 70,000 Afghan citizens also lost their lives. This makes this chaos all the harder to bear.

Our involvement was never intended to be open-ended. Since 2014, when our combat operations ceased while training and logistical support continued, it was always recognised that at some point it would be appropriate to work with the Afghan Government on a managed and tactical departure. However, as I put it to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on 12 July:

“Progress made is not … the same as those gains being secured and irreversible.”—[Official Report, 12/7/21; col. 1551.]


The Biden Administration’s decision followed the agreement between President Trump and the Taliban, not the Afghan Government, 18 months ago, so I asked the noble Baroness on 12 July about the “ongoing commitment to Afghanistan” and details of our engagement with the US Government prior to this decision being announced. I sought information about whether, at any stage, we had discussed alternative courses of action, warned of the dangers of the timescale or sought additional NATO support. Even at that stage, this outcome was not inevitable.

Did we ever seek to build any regional consensus that we had previously? I quote the Prime Minister’s comments:

“we shall use every diplomatic and humanitarian lever to support Afghanistan’s development and stability.” —[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/21; col. 1104.]

I ask what that meant in practice. Those questions were not answered, and perhaps that was wise, because clearly there was no satisfactory answer. It is not for today, but at some stage the Prime Minister must address these points.

Because there were no answers then, the situation now in Afghanistan is an international humanitarian and political crisis. With the Taliban firmly in control, reports are now emerging of militants searching door to door for individuals who have previously worked with British, US and NATO forces. Meanwhile, the World Food Programme is warning that over half the country’s population is already in need of humanitarian assistance, and chaos continues for those trying to fly out of Kabul. I have nothing but praise for the British officials and troops doing their duty there. Shocking reports now also suggest that children in rural areas are already being targeted to marry soldiers, and others are being murdered for their opposition to the Taliban.

Three key areas now need to be addressed. First is the immediate humanitarian crisis. With thousands desperately trying to flee, we have seen horrific scenes at Kabul airport, showing the depth of fear of the Taliban, given its previous brutality and fundamentalism. We urgently need a generous British Afghanistan resettlement programme, open to interpreters, support staff, the media and others who are now at risk. However, the Government’s sanctuary scheme shows that they have failed to plan for this eventuality and are now scrambling in an attempt to meet the scale of the challenge. Can the noble Baroness the Leader, or the Minister who is responding, confirm how the Government reached the figure of 20,000 and how it was decided that only a quarter of that number would be welcomed in the first year, given the immediate danger that so many will now be in? Having heard the Home Secretary on Radio 4 this morning, I had no sense that she understood the urgency that is needed.

We must use our role in multilateral institutions and work with other countries to push for the safe passage and protection of those at risk, such as women judges, students and journalists, including over 100 BBC staff based in Kabul. Few could not have been affected and dismayed by the reaction of Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, as he admitted that not all who were endangered through working with us can be brought to safety. We have an obligation to them.

The second area is the future of Afghanistan. Reports are mixed. While in Kabul, female journalists have remained on TV, but there are many other seriously disturbing reports. Others in your Lordships’ House today will speak of their contacts with judges, teachers, students, politicians, aid workers, journalists and others who are under threat. We have heard of working women being forced home and told that they cannot return to their jobs and must wear the hijab. Many of these women were encouraged to speak out by us and other countries, and that makes them and their families more vulnerable. The Taliban has a history of female oppression and of brutality. Our hearts ache for the young women and girls who dream of an education and freedom to choose their own path in life, if that is then snatched away from them by a failure of political decision-making.

The third area is international efforts to protect against terrorism. We should be driven above all by our decency and responsibility to confront suffering, but we must also understand that, if we fail, Afghanistan could again breed extremism that poses a threat to us all. Al-Qaeda and other extremist Islamic groups are already present in Afghanistan, and the Taliban’s takeover will be seen as a boost to militants elsewhere in the world. The way in which this withdrawal was carried out will do nothing to convince other countries that the West can be relied upon to stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

As we consider the future, we must affirm that the Taliban has not taken control through legitimate means, and our Government are right not to offer and provide official recognition. Attention must now turn to how the UK and likeminded allies respond, and the Government must find the courage to lead. We must now utilise our unique role, as the G7 president and a leading voice within the UN and NATO, and seek alliances to protect those at risk. While we must push for democratic and humane values to be maintained, we must also plan for a situation in which they are not. This means protecting those most at risk from harm.

Unfortunately, the Government’s strategy so far has been fraught with hesitation, and the delayed arrival of the FCDO’s rapid deployment team has left British soldiers and the small diplomatic team doing excellent work in the most difficult circumstances and conditions. We fully support the recent troop deployment, and the Government must now ensure that they are in Kabul and fully resourced to carry out their work. We must also review decisions that have been taken. I understand that, today, an announcement has been made about increased aid to Afghanistan—so we have to examine the impact of an almost 75% cut to this aid over the past three years. We should never take a short-sighted view of supporting those who most need our help.

In conclusion, for the people of Afghanistan, the past week has been in equal parts traumatic and devastating—but we should also recognise the incredible bravery shown by some in response. Just yesterday, incredible images were circulated on social media of women protesters with placards on the streets of Kabul, but questions remain about whether the Taliban will continue to stand by if the eyes of the West turn away. The Taliban has taken control, but the final destiny of the country is yet to be seen. We cannot abandon Afghanistan and must use every available diplomatic route to stand up for the basic rights of all its citizens.

Procedure and Privileges

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a long and interesting debate. It shows the challenges the Procedure Committee faces: just because a Member of the House thinks one thing, it does not mean there is an automatic cohort of others that agree on that point. There are a lot of crossed interests and different views, which strikes to the heart of the issue. When we looked at the different issues, it was felt that fundamental and significant change could not be proposed by the Procedure Committee unless there was widespread agreement on it and these were things we would return to on another day. I will come back to that.

I concur with all the comments that have been made about the staff of the House and the way they responded to our demands. When we initially had to become remote and then hybrid there was no blueprint and no equipment; we were starting absolutely from scratch. The Leader of the House, the leaders of other groups and the Convenor will recall the many meetings over many days and long hours when they were contacting us and serving us well to ensure we could operate. I think that the noble Baroness said that they served their purpose, and they did, because we have been able to function as a House, albeit not in the way we would genuinely wish to.

It is worth reflecting on the past 16 months. I have to say, 16 months ago, I thought that Zoom was an ice lolly, I had never heard of Teams and the words “Can you unmute?” were not ones that came easily. We have all learned a lot. Last Tuesday, I celebrated an important personal milestone of the pandemic: in addition to being in the Chamber, I had seven meetings, none of which took place over Zoom. They were all physical meetings because they were small groups in larger rooms. It was a much better experience with better outcomes and was not so exhausting.

Few, I think, would argue that conducting all the proceedings remotely or in a hybrid way is ideal. It has not been easy. There were the doubters who said that we would never cope with it. As we have heard today, we have had our moments, including asking “Can you hear me?” and “Can you unmute?” and having people drop out. However, if it were not for the people who made that happen—I pay particular tribute to the staff who developed and managed the Peers’ hub; it has been an excellent innovation and I hope that we keep it to a very large extent—we would not have done something that others doubted we could do. We have excelled ourselves. I still think that our Peers’ hub remote voting is significantly better than the nonsense we have seen at the other end of the building, with a conga to go and vote, then proxy voting. I would never be comfortable with somebody voting on my behalf; I would much rather do it myself.

However, we also have to look at the deficiencies. Too often, our debates have taken much longer. Yesterday was a prime example: the House sat from noon—lunchtime—until two minutes to 12 last night. We know the difficulties. It is easy enough to make a speech or make a point remotely, but it is far harder to debate, discuss and engage. We have managed it, but not in the way we would like.

The committee’s report has my support, which is not to say that it is not a compromise. The decision on electronic voting came from the debate on 20 May when more than 70 Members of your Lordships’ House took part. There was strong support for retaining the Peers’ hub or some form of electronic voting but views were divided, although they were mainly in support of voting on the premises, not remotely, in view of the fact that voting is quite a collective activity. I think one noble Lord admitted that they got it wrong because they were not with colleagues. I am agnostic on where the voting terminals should be when we move to voting without the Peers’ hub. We must look at what will benefit the House and our debates. Voting is a political activity and when we are together we engage in that political debate, which is important.

A few noble Lords said that this is the wrong way round and that we are having the vote on the Peers’ hub and the decision on the committee’s report before we have had the debate. There was a debate on 20 May to which the Procedure Committee and noble Lords listened carefully before proceeding with a way forward. However, as I have said, it was also felt that, where there was fundamental and significant change—I have no doubt that there will be further change—it should done by agreement and having the opportunity, when the House returns physically and is not just working remotely or in a hybrid way, to consider some of these matters further.

I welcome what the report said about disabilities. I was initially concerned—I expressed this to your Lordships’ House—that it was saying that, for Members with disabilities, we should offer the opportunity to work remotely. First and foremost, we want to ensure that we do as much as we possibly can as a House to ensure that those with disabilities can participate fully in the work of the House. If part of that is through remote working, it should be undertaken, but it should never be the default position that somebody with a disability is asked to work remotely, unless it is in their interests and they wish to do so.

In many ways, I am slightly disappointed that so much of the debate concerned Oral Questions; I suppose it is because of the ballot we had through the Peers’ hub. To me, the most important thing that this House does—that is not to demean the role of Questions and Statements—is our legislative work and the role we play in legislation which, to me, has been the hardest part to undertake in a hybrid way. Those who have been engaged in legislation have often done so until very late at night; we talked about the Environment Bill last night, but when we were considering the Fisheries Bill and other legislation, the House regularly sat until midnight. The point was made my noble friend Lord Adonis and others that we are not at our best when we are starting at 12 pm and finishing at 12 am. I hope that more physical debates on legislation will ensure that we do not have those very long sittings. They were not helpful to anybody and often became exchanges of speeches that sometimes do not relate to other speeches that were made earlier when we had had a proper debate on legislation in the Chamber.

I want to look at the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Cormack. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that I concur with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby: whether we agree or not—although I did not vote, I would have voted the other way, to remove the speakers’ lists—the House took a decision. When we discussed this with the Procedure Committee, it was decided that we would review it at a later date because Members may feel differently when we are back physically and there should be the opportunity to look at all these decisions then. However, it is not fair to say, “I don’t like this decision. I therefore want to change it”, so I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It will be reviewed by the committee, as the committee agreed; it is right that we should do that because, when we return physically, we may have a different view.

There has not been a golden age of Ministers answering questions fully or us having proper scrutiny of those Ministers, but I do think that Questions are conducted better without lists. However, it is the choice of the House, and I think that it was possibly a majority of the members of the Procedure Committee who preferred to keep the lists. We felt that, because there was a difference of view across the House, the House should take that decision, rather than the usual channels or the Procedure Committee. It will be reviewed when we return.

I say the same as the Lord Speaker: I have some sympathy with this. The House does not cover itself in glory when Members get shouted down. I wince when it is regarded as an issue for female Members of the House—I have never had great difficulty in making myself heard—but it can be for inexperienced Members who are perhaps not used to a political setting and find it uncomfortable. However, again, for me, that matter comes under the more fundamental change that, when the House sits physically, the Members who are here can consider. So I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on this point either.

We have an opportunity in the next few months. My noble friend Lord Grocott mentioned six months; in fact, that was the timescale I put to the Senior Deputy Speaker and the Leader in terms of reviewing matters. When we are back physically and have done things in a certain way for six months, we will have a sense of what works and what does not. We will have such an opportunity with Questions. Oral Questions and UQs will have a list but Statements and PNQs will not, so we will have an opportunity to compare the two and see which the House prefers. That is a good way to take this forward. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments to a vote tonight but instead accept that these matters will be reviewed.

I always listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, with great respect. However, I take issue with one thing he said today: that this is a part-time House. It is not a part-time House. We are a full-time House. We actually sit longer than the House of Commons. We do have part-time Members; this House has never expected all its Members to be full-time Members. Saying that this is a part-time House misunderstands and misrepresents the scale of the work that we do and the issues that we raise. Racism in football, for example, has not been addressed by the other House yet but it was addressed in this House today through a PNQ. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord did not mean to, but we should not demean the role of this House.

I have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Adonis, who spoke very powerfully. Indeed, his speech mirrored something that I raised with members of the Procedure Committee and the Leader early on: not that we should start earlier and finish earlier, but that we should examine that. A number of committees take place and a number of issues are raised. Many Members of the House are engaged not just in outside activities but in activities in your Lordships’ House, such as meetings with Ministers and working on Bills. Some also have to travel. Those who work on legislation play quite a detailed role in getting ready for that day’s work. This is something that we should discuss.

However, the worst reason I have ever heard for opposing my noble friend’s amendment was the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I regret to say this to the noble Lord, but the idea that we should sit later because it is helpful to have lunch with people does a great disservice to the many Members of this House working internally and externally, getting ready for legislation and Bills, and preparing speeches to ensure that they are fully prepared when they come to your Lordships’ House. I hope he will reflect on that comment as we move forward.

However—call me a cynic—my noble friend’s amendment is one side of the equation but not the other. I am nervous: knowing the battles that my noble friend Lord Kennedy, and previously my noble friend Lord McAvoy, had in trying to get the Government not to sit too late into the night but to have proceedings end at a reasonable time, like 10 pm, I am really concerned that, if his amendment was accepted as it stands on the Order Paper today, we would find ourselves sitting at 1 pm and going later and later. If we change the hours, there should be a debate in this House, and full consideration of the impact across the House, on having an earlier start time and just moving the day forward. I would accept that, but that is not what his amendment does. I hope he will reflect on that. I think it is something the Procedure Committee will reflect on, take soundings on and come back to, but I do not think passing an amendment today that just says we will sit at 1 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays really makes the point or addresses the issues in the way we would wish to. I regret to say to my noble friend that I would not be able to vote for that amendment, although I would very much like to revisit the hours at which the House sits as we move forward.

I have two further brief points to make. When the commissioners met, we predicated all these things on when the House returns physically, which we expect to be on 6 September. There has to be some doubt, with the rise in infections, that this will be the case. The delta, or Johnson, variant is actually quite rampant now. I hope it is the case; I certainly am longing to return to our physical proceedings. But I hope the noble Baroness can make a commitment that the commission will meet prior to that to confirm or, only if essential, delay in the light of prevailing circumstances.

Secondly, the Government have said that they will stop the free tests. If that is the case, and the Covid tests are not made available, I hope that your Lordships’ House will continue to provide a testing regime for those who work in the Palace.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, there were technical problems with the Division system, but I am told it is now functioning so I will extend the Division by three minutes.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Can I just check with the Lord Speaker: if people have already voted, is that taken as a vote? Is there a way of putting the extension on the screen, and extending it for more than three minutes, as a number of Members have left the Chamber thinking they were unable to vote? I am not convinced that an extra three minutes is long enough.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

The votes of those who have voted will be recorded. Why do we not go for 10 minutes? Is that okay? Very good.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Can a message be put on the screen that the vote is still open for the next 10 minutes, please?

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

Point taken.

Afghanistan

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House would like to pay tribute to the more than 150,000 UK personnel who have served in Afghanistan during the past 20 years. Their bravery and professionalism have denied terrorists a safe haven and helped Afghanistan build its institutions; they have trained and advised Afghan forces and supported the advancement of the rights of women and education for girls.

Those crucial advances were made with huge sacrifices: 457 UK service men and women lost their lives, and many thousands more and their families continue to endure physical and mental injuries. More than 70,000 Afghan civilians lost their lives, and while progress has been made, there remain huge challenges. We owe a debt of gratitude to our Armed Forces and they should be proud of their work and achievements.

In his Statement—which I unfortunately did not get to hear under our current arrangements—although the Prime Minister confirmed that our presence in Afghanistan as part of the international military effort was never intended to be permanent, he rightly conceded that we cannot

“shrink from the hard reality of the situation today.”

Progress made is not necessarily the same as those gains being secured and irreversible. Given the sacrifices made, the Government need to be clear about their ongoing commitment to Afghanistan.

Most of the UK personnel have already left, following the decision of the US Government in April that all US forces would leave in September, when, according to the NATO summit decision, operations were coming to an end. Can the Leader of the House explain the engagement the UK Government had with the US prior to that decision being taken? Did the Prime Minister suggest a different course of action? Did he offer a different timescale, or did he discuss how we could contribute to a lasting settlement?

Many in your Lordships’ House with direct experience of military action engagement have concerns about what happens next. We share those concerns, both for the stability of Afghanistan and for the remaining potential security threat to the wider world, including the UK. It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about the Government’s assessment of the possible return of al-Qaeda. There is evidence that the Taliban is making gains on the ground, and hostile states are now exploring options to fill any military and diplomatic vacuum. Serious questions therefore remain about the future stability of the country. The Prime Minister said in his Statement, which we have not heard:

“We are not about to turn away, nor are we under any illusions about the perils of today’s situation and what may lie ahead.”


Therefore, when the Prime Minister says that he will use

“every diplomatic and humanitarian lever to support Afghanistan’s development and stability”,

what does that actually mean in practice on the ground?

Nobody wants to see British troops permanently stationed in Afghanistan, but we cannot simply just walk away without seeking to ensure that it will not lead to bloodier conflict and wider Taliban control. I do not know if the Minister heard the same BBC interview as I did, in which General Sir Nick Carter outlined three possible, credible outcomes from withdrawal. The first is that the Afghan Government remain in power, supported by what is now a well-trained army. The second, and the most worrying, is that the country fractures and the Government collapse, which would lead to the Taliban and others making advances. The third outcome, which he described as the most hopeful, is a political compromise, with talks, which chimes with the Government’s statement that there must be a peaceful and negotiated political settlement. How are our diplomats supporting that process?

Also, how are we supporting the Afghan Government? Actions have to follow words, and, as we withdraw troops, we are also withdrawing financial support—unlike the US, which is determined to boost development and military aid. We have to ask why. Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world, but our aid fund to the country is being cut by more than £100 million. Why are we out of step with our allies on this? Have the Government assessed the security impact, as well as the social impact, of those cuts?

I am sure that many in this House were relieved to hear the Prime Minister say that we owe an immense debt to the translators and other locally employed staff who risked their lives alongside British forces. The Minister will have heard that issue raised in your Lordships’ House many times over the past few years. The risk to those staff and translators does not disappear when we leave: the likelihood is that it increases. Some staff have already been forced to flee to neighbouring countries, and some have ended up in refugee camps.

Last week, an FT editorial commented: “It is a matter of days, not months, that are critical for the interpreters and their families. The UK has opened up relocation schemes, but it is not enough.” Since the Government launched the new Afghan relocation assistance policy in April, how many applications have they received and how many have now been processed? Will she give a commitment that that will be kept under review and updated if the situation on the ground changes?

The recent NATO summit communique said:

“Withdrawing our troops does not mean ending our relationship with Afghanistan. We will now open a new chapter.”


I have commented previously from this Dispatch Box that we want the UK to be a moral force for good in the world. What we do next in relation to Afghanistan will be a test of the Government’s commitment to that.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

“every diplomatic and humanitarian lever”

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

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

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

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

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

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

G7 and NATO Summits

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, had we heard the Prime Minister make his Statement in the other place, we would have heard the great joy with which he did so and how wonderful he thought the summit was, but we need to reflect on this. The Prime Minister hosted his first summit as the country basked in some much-needed sunshine and the England team delighted us all with their first group-stage win. The BBC reported that the US President raised Northern Ireland in a side meeting, and finance Ministers discussed global tax arrangements. That is not about 2021; the same issues were raised back at the G8, as it was then, in 1998, but the similarities end there. The differences between the Carbis Bay and Birmingham summits are stark, not just because it is now the G7 meeting.

The hope that we would see agreement on meaningful, concrete plans to tackle the biggest global challenges disappeared as the Prime Minister’s strained relationships with world leaders took centre stage. Not for the first time, the Government overpromised and underdelivered. There is no global vaccination plan and no action agreed on the climate crisis. At every step, Boris Johnson’s broken promises have cost us friends—but they also cost us our influence.

Bringing the pandemic to an end must be the priority. That means an effective, worldwide vaccination programme. While the virus circulates anywhere it is a threat to us all everywhere, so we welcomed and were optimistic about the Prime Minister’s promise to vaccinate the entire world, as he said, by the end of 2022—only to yet again be disappointed as that turned out to be unsubstantiated rhetoric, with no clear plan to deliver it. There is no funding formula, no operational strategy and no information on where the 11 billion doses of the vaccine would come from. We should have seen an immediate increase in global support for health services in developing countries for any plans to be truly effective.

The shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, Emily Thornberry, has written to the Prime Minister on those issues. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has had an opportunity to see that letter to the Prime Minister and that he has read it. The 10-point plan my right honourable friend outlined addresses the fundamental problems about how we can produce the volume of vaccines needed, alongside making preparations for the infrastructure to deliver it. It would ensure we were better prepared for any future pandemic. Yes, it is expensive, but the human, social and economic costs of not doing so are far greater.

Ahead of COP 26, the G7 could have set the groundwork for an ambitious green recovery, leading global support across the world to tackle the climate crisis and finding common ground on climate finance. Again, the Prime Minister fell short: nothing was agreed on national determined contributions and there was nothing to support mitigation and adaptation in the world’s poorest countries. The complete failure of the green homes grant here at home and the impact of aid cuts on climate projects undermine our climate credibility and leave us recklessly out of step with our allies in the G7.

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be aware that I have repeatedly asked when, or indeed if, there will be a vote in Parliament on aid cuts. I have had no success, even though this is about the Government breaking their own legislation. This time I will be more specific about the effects of those cuts, because the Prime Minister’s Statement, made yesterday, refers to girls’ education. He clearly recognises the importance of the issue. Given that, and following the cut in the aid budget, will the Government now publish the full details of the cuts expected for such girls’ education programmes? This is just in the interests of transparency, so we know the exact impact they will have.

While Northern Ireland may have been missing from the communiqué and the Prime Minister’s Statement to Parliament, it was not missing from the meetings. Let us be clear: the protocol was not imposed on us but negotiated by this Government. Mr Johnson’s claim to

“do whatever it takes to protect the … integrity of the UK”

is meaningless unless the Government step up to find serious solutions to protect the precious Good Friday agreement. In refusing to do that, the Government are not only shirking their responsibility but damaging our reputation with our strongest allies. We have repeatedly suggested that a veterinary agreement which recognises the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland would remove the need for almost all the checks. Ministers must now show some leadership.

President Biden’s proposal for the global minimum corporation tax is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stop tax avoidance and the undercutting of UK businesses which pay their fair share. This could provide us with billions of pounds in extra tax revenue, yet the Government have spent the last few weeks watering down proposals which could have put an extra £131 million a week into our NHS and other services for the public’s benefit. Can the noble Baroness tell the House why the Government stood in the way of this proposal?

Although Northern Ireland was not mentioned, the Australian trade deal was. We obviously want to see good trade deals, but we also need to see the details and not just the Government patting themselves on the back. I seek two points of clarification on that trade deal. First, there seems to be no mention in the Government’s agreement in principle of environmental or animal welfare standards. The noble Baroness will understand why it is so important to the farming community to ensure that our high production standards are not undermined. Can she provide any assurances on this? Secondly, can she also guarantee that, prior to ratification, Parliament will have full ratification well in advance and a clear and accurate impact assessment?

On a more optimistic note, the NATO summit in Brussels took some welcome steps towards future security in Europe and the north Atlantic. This underlines exactly why the alliance is so important to us. A collective understanding of new security threats, a recommitment to Article 5 deterrence and an emphasis on climate are each integral to global security and stability. We are also pleased that the leaders recognise the challenges that Beijing poses to global security and stability, so can the noble Baroness now detail and provide more information on what strategic actions NATO will agree in relation to China?

In a world of democracy under pressure, and as the US leads allies in facing the challenges posed by China in the Indo-Pacific, the UK’s military leadership in Europe is more important than ever. Having cut the British Army by a further 10,000, however, we are left not only unable to provide regional leadership but out of step with our allies. Again, the UK Government were unable to provide the necessary leadership or direction that we should be in a position to do. With that in mind, does the noble Baroness regret that the Government have broken their election pledge and are now cutting our Armed Forces by 10,000?

In conclusion, it has been 23 years since the Birmingham G8. International co-operation remains our most effective tool for global progress but the Government have to be ambitious, and that is what was really lacking from this summit. We could have enormous influence on the world stage, but that is a choice. We can do that only if we have the leadership to turn our values into action.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

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