Long-Term Strategic Challenges Posed by China

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I am also grateful to the Minister for giving us the opportunity to study and discuss this question of the long-term strategic challenges posed by China. It will be no great surprise, and scarcely a matter of a declaration of interest, for me to say that liberal democratic principles are absolutely key for me and liberal democratic practices are something that I want to continue to engage in and encourage. Nor would it be doing more than stating the obvious to say that this was not shared by the People’s Republic of China.

In doing so, it is important for us to try to deepen our understanding of what is happening in our wider world. It is changing, and it is not easy to know how best to deal with it. It is important that we stand up for principles, for example those of human rights. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for commending my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool for his strong stance in that regard—not only in respect of China, but notably so.

I also noted what the noble Lord said about Taiwan and the WHO. It reminded me of an experience I had myself quite some years ago. I was president of Liberal International, which has had consultative status on the ECOSOC committee of the UN since 1985. But, in March 2007, the DPP, a member party from Taiwan, was on a Liberal International delegation at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The question of WHO membership for Taiwan was raised by the DPP member—not very surprisingly. There was no questioning of the diplomatic status of China, which had always been respected by Liberal International—just the possibility of WHO membership for Taiwan. However, the People’s Republic of China took grave exception to this, and in May of that year, 2007, just a few weeks later, the UN NGO committee recommended the withdrawal of general consultative status for Liberal International because of this incident.

I discussed this with UN representatives from a number of our friendly nations: the United States, all the EU members and the ambassadors of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Israel and of course the United Kingdom. All of them were opposed to the exclusion of Liberal International on the basis of this episode. However, it became clear that it was going to be approved anyway, because the People’s Republic of China in 2007 effectively had control of the United Nations General Assembly. There were enough of the other members that were going to support the PRC whatever the situation. So, I engaged directly with representatives of the People’s Republic of China at the embassy here in London, and after negotiations we were able to reach an agreement. It was that Liberal International would accept exclusion for one year but the PRC would not object to its restoration and, when restored, the LI would observe a self-denying ordinance whereby its delegates would not address, in the name of Liberal International or as part of its delegation, issues that referred to its own domestic agenda. Others could refer to the case of Taiwan but not the Taiwanese. The Taiwanese could refer to anything else; Taiwan was not even mentioned in the agreement, but the background to it was very clear.

That was accepted by the PRC and I wrote to the chairman of ECOSOC in that regard. Liberal International was removed for 12 months and then came back. There was no objection from PRC and has not been in the 15 years since then. I took three things from that. The first was that, while I had previously visited Taiwan, I had not, I think, understood quite how exquisitely sensitive the issue of Taiwan was. Indeed, one of the diplomats from the embassy here said to me, “It is the most important foreign policy issue for China”. I said, “Look at all the other important issues”, but he said, “No, you don’t understand. It is the most important issue”. I think we need to keep that in mind.

Secondly, whatever our thoughts about these things and however much support we have from our traditional friends, the General Assembly of the United Nations has, in effect, been controlled for some decades by the PRC, which also has its veto power in the Security Council. Thirdly, and more positively, if one were to reach an agreed and negotiated outcome, the PRC would live with it and continue to do so. As I said, 15 years later, it has not reneged on the decision on Liberal International.

The situation in our world changed and we have to recognise that we are no longer quite the power that we were in the West. In 2008, undoubtedly educated by that experience the previous year, I wrote a paper with my friend Sundeep Waslekar about talks and dialogue in the Middle East. We did not call it “the Middle East” because he comes from India, so I learned that to him it was “west Asia”—another example of how we need to take into account the cultural and intellectual perspectives of others from a different part of the world. It was published in India and Global Affairs in 2008. We wrote:

“If Israel and the Arab parties do not find a comprehensive solution soon, Iran can be expected to be an even more direct player in the near future. If a few more years are allowed to pass”,


Russia and China will develop significant stakes in the region. We also said that, at that time, it would have been possible to negotiate knowing English, Hebrew and Arabic, but if it were left too long people would need to learn Russian and Chinese as well.

One of the difficulties that has emerged is about our understanding and appreciation that people have very different perspectives from ours. As liberals in the Isaiah Berlin tradition, we have long been prepared to indicate that, of course, others have cultural differences from us and different principles and perspectives. But when they start having different perspectives on, say, human rights or fundamentally different cultural perspectives, or an attachment to forms of religion we do not easily accept, our tolerance and appreciation of those differences sometimes become difficult to sustain. For example, in July 2023, an article in China Daily, “Toward a Fair World Rights Order”, described how very important it is that we accept that there is no enforcement of

“uniformity on others, in the belief that certain traditions and systems are inherently superior”.

When we were sure that ours would be superior and would carry the day, we would have been happy to sign up for that, but now that that is no longer the case it is much more of a challenge for us. It seems to me that there is a very significant challenge, intellectually and politically, to us as we to try to struggle with this question.

I will take a more practical aspect: economics. One of the things that struck me a great deal when engaging with colleagues around the world was how absolutely enormously much of the rest of the world resents the power of the US dollar. The fact that it is the reserve currency has allowed massive debt to be created that can be resolved simply by printing more dollars. My sense of things, as I have listened to people over the last few years, is that we may well, in the next year or two, find Russia, China and others trying to construct some kind of alternative reserve currency. We have been through that before: sterling used to be a strong reserve currency. We still have our pound, but it is not in the same place as it was. If the United States finds itself experiencing that, it will be difficult intellectually—in terms of human, civil and political rights—to complain about it, but the consequences would be absolutely enormous; indeed, potentially catastrophic. It seems to me that there is a lot to be said as we struggle with these questions, so I entirely appreciate that, when the integrated review refresh talks about

“an epoch-defining and systemic challenge”,

it is absolutely right to do so.

It is important to appreciate that China is a challenge, a competitor—it may be a rival in some areas but I am not sure that we measure up enough for it to be a rival in the major areas. Economically, the rivalry is with the United States and the European Union, militarily it is with the United States, but what is crucial is that this rivalry, challenge, difference and disagreement do not lead us into what Graham Allison called the Thucydides trap of making China into an enemy. That is why it is crucial that the Foreign Secretary went to Beijing, kept open the channels of communication, talked, listened and engaged, because when someone is a competitor or a rival, but you maintain communication, they do not necessarily need to become an enemy. You can sit there and disagree, argue, discuss and perhaps even sometimes to some degree change each other’s mind, but you do not become an enemy. What humankind would not be able to sustain is China becoming an enemy of the United States, Europe and our allies.

There are many things that we can co-operate on. Some of them have been mentioned by the Minister: environmental questions, crucially, and artificial intelligence. I welcome the fact that the Chinese will be here next month at Bletchley Park. There is the whole nuclear question. In the 1970s, we had to engage across the Cold War divide with Russia and establish the CSCE and, ultimately, the OSCE. Why? Because we agreed? No, because we did not agree and we needed to engage with those whom we disagreed absolutely profoundly, including on all issues such as human rights, the economy and so on. Why? To make sure that there was still a world for our children and grandchildren to inhabit and not one that was destroyed by nuclear war.

It will be absolutely critical that on a question of that kind we have the kinds of structures that enable us to engage China and ensure the safety of the world. China can be helpful to us on the Russia/Ukraine question, it can be helpful to all of us on the Middle East question—the west Asia question—and it can even be helpful to us on issues such as North Korea, but it will be able to be helpful only if we can disagree in a civil way, engage in communication and collaboration on some common interests, and ensure that China becomes whatever kind of competitor—and it may be more successful than we would like to believe—but that it does not become an enemy.

Afghanistan

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests in war and conflict studies.

On 4 October 2001, less than a month after 9/11 and a few days before the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom, we debated what should be done. I intervene again today, like some other participants of 20 years ago, but miss my dear friend, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon. In a powerful speech then, Paddy focused on the history of Afghanistan. His family connection went back a century before his birth, in India, in 1941, to his great-grandfather, who had been in Kabul caught up in the first Afghan war, from which we withdrew in 1842, suffering one of the worst military disasters of the 19th century. Paddy reminded us that Afghanistan had rarely been at peace and advised of the perils of engagement. I said that day that the problem was not the absence of socioeconomic development but of a wholly different culture and beliefs, which we would not change for the better by military intervention.

The first rule of Afghanistan is that invaders do not win, and the second is that it will not be a liberal democracy in any foreseeable future. For 20 years now, bookended by the geopolitical catastrophes of 9/11 and August 2021, we have engaged in a war undertaken in 2001 to address our concerns. It was not undertaken primarily at the time to aid the Afghans, and what could have worked as a short, punitive strike was ultimately doomed when it tried regime and culture change.

Another colleague we miss today is Baroness Williams of Crosby. She rightly asked then about UN involvement, but that was blocked in early 2008, when the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, vetoed Paddy Ashdown’s appointment as UN envoy, despite his highly successful mandate in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Our response then should have been to engage in talks with the Taliban. That was the advice given later to the Foreign Office by my Northern Ireland colleagues, brought in by the British ambassador. It was dismissed by London. That is my second point: do not ignore the advice of those who have lived through terror-afflicted violence and come out the other side; we may understand the messy reality better than those whose optimistic wishes dominate their diplomatic assessment.

Thirdly, research has shown that it is not overwhelming military power and technical sophistication but the passionate spiritual commitment of devoted actors that wins wars, and this should inform every response to the demand that “Something must be done”. We do not have time for a long Chilcot-type inquiry, because these lessons are relevant to current involvements across the Muslim world, including, as I learned from some leading Palestinians earlier this week, in Israel-Palestine.

Does the Minister recognise that we ignore history at our peril; that we are unable to build liberal democracies from the outside; and that, ultimately, we are likely to end a conflict best by understanding the spiritual strength of our enemies and negotiating with them when the time is right? It is too late to do that when you have decided you are leaving.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, I say quickly that almost every speech has gone over time and we are now nearly half way through. Can we all please keep an eye on the time, because we do not want to eat into my noble friend’s speech, so he can answer all your questions fully? Thank you.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have been around as continuity and stability through the whole of my life, and I must confess to feeling a little affected and uncertain about what all this means, not just emotionally but for all of us. I can scarcely appreciate the impact it must have on the members of the Royal Family and on Her Majesty the Queen, and I send my deepest sympathies and condolences. The Queen and the Duke have been there for the whole of my life.

As a young boy, I joined the Boys’ Brigade and that introduced me to the possibility of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award. Like the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, I progressed through, learning much. The expeditions had a particular impact on me. Returning from the Sperrin mountains with cold Irish rain guttering down the back of my neck and eating cold baked beans out of tin, I learned that there is a profound difference between comfort and satisfaction. Of course, the satisfaction was all the greater because it gave the possibility at the end of going with my parents to Buckingham Palace, which was probably the proudest day of my young life at that time.

All through from then, the Duke had an impact; for example, he visited my community in Northern Ireland more than 50 times, even during difficult and troubled times. For much of that time, he and Her Majesty were, of course, best appreciated by the part of the community that I came from—the Protestant community. But that was to change dramatically in the later part of the peace process, particularly when Her Majesty came to Parliament Buildings, and then with the extraordinary and transformational visit to the Republic of Ireland. And in 2012, there was the profoundly, historically significant handshake with Martin McGuinness. I remind noble Lords of this event because how enormous it was may not always be appreciated. In republican theology, the war is not with northern Protestants but with Britain, and no one represents Britain more than Her Majesty the Queen. The man who shook her hand, Martin McGuinness, was more than any other the representative of not just political but violent republicanism. That handshake meant the end of the war. It meant the end of the war for republicans. The man who was standing beside Her Majesty, the Duke of Edinburgh, was a victim, because his uncle, who was in truth more of a father figure to him and who helped to bring the two of them together, had been murdered by the IRA—an IRA led by Martin McGuiness. He did not shake his hand and he was not effusive, but he was there. To me, there is something profoundly significant about the courage, steadfastness and leadership of a man who can do that.

Of course it was not all seriousness in his life. Her Majesty loved having members of what she called the “home team” to entertain diplomats and others at garden parties. I well remember one when I was there as Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Duke turned to me and said, “You’re Irish, aren’t you?”. I said, “Yes, sir”. He said, “Have you heard about the two Irishmen who went past the pub without going in for a drink?”. I said, “No, sir, I haven’t”, and he said, “No, I’ve never heard of two Irishmen going past a pub without going in for a drink”. I fell about the place laughing, and Her Majesty looked round—she was standing just beside us—and said just one word: “Philip”. It expressed a degree of remonstrance and indulgence.

He was extraordinary, but he was also a man of great depth, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has said. For him, meaning, faith and commitment in life were truly important. I think for him it was not always just the content of belief but the conduct of life that was crucial: to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God. It seems to me that the one who worshiped was a servant king, and that was the transformation the Duke engineered in our monarchy. He and Her Majesty the Queen entered at a time of imperial rule; they leave when the monarchy represents public service. That is what I remember from him, and I will seek not just to celebrate that life but to emulate that legacy.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing the legislation with such clarity. I welcome it and I think it gives a much-needed adrenaline boost, as was noted by my right honourable friend Alok Sharma in the House of Commons. Principally, of course, it is helping the hospitality sector, which has suffered such a massive drop of some 90% in business because of the virus. It is right that we fast-track these pavement licences and that there is a reasonable fee but, like the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Low, and my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Holmes, I think we need to be very careful about access issues and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect access for the partially sighted, the blind, people in wheelchairs and so on. That is absolutely right.

Like others, I have some concerns relating to Clause 11 about off-sales, particularly late into the night. We know that drink and social distance do not mix. We should very much bear that in mind when we try to square the circle of opening up the economy while recognising the dangers that still exist from the virus; we ignore it at our peril. The British Beer and Pub Association has noted that 25% of pubs are still not able to reopen, even with one-metre social distancing, so encouraging the opening up of pavement licences is something I very much welcome.

The position on convenience stores appears a bit confused. The Association of Convenience Stores, which covers shops such as the Co-op, Nisa, Budgens, SPAR, petrol forecourts and lots of independent businesses, is not convinced that they are covered by this legislation. It seems to me that they are, in Clause 1(4)(b), but I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will confirm that when he sums up. We should ensure that that is the case, because we need to be innovative and broaden our approach. We need to open up the economy.

I share my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s welcome of today’s announcement of help for the arts, but note that we need a road map as well for continued regeneration of arts and culture venues, as we do for sports, as we just heard from my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I hope that is also something we can turn our attention to. I very much support what my noble friends Lord Wei and Lord Lucas said about the need for an innovative approach to try to regenerate and revitalise our town centres with drive-through cinemas and drive-through facilities, and to open up towns with more markets, food approaches and so on. We should look at that. We need to be innovative and to make sure that we really do get the economy humming again.

The legislation is welcome in many other ways: I very much welcome the flexibilities for the construction sector and for planning permission. They are very sensible, as is the flexibility for driving licences. We need to ensure that we fund our local authorities, considering the extra burden that they are taking on. We owe them that to ensure that we all go forward together. Subject to that, I very much welcome the legislation. It shows some imagination. We perhaps need to show even more imagination as we try to open up our economy and get it moving yet again.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Oh, could you unmute? I am afraid we cannot hear you.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House adjourn for five minutes to resolve the technical issue.

Business of the House

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

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

I entirely agree that today’s debate is extremely important and I am delighted that we have been able to facilitate it. Our Benches have, quite rightly, given a Conservative Party debate to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and I look forward to what I am sure will be an extremely interesting and informed debate by all noble Lords taking part.

I have to reiterate to noble Lords that the House authorities, the Digital Service and the broadcast team are at maximum capacity. They are not able to facilitate longer debates or those with more than 50 Members taking part. I know that it is frustrating but I am afraid that there are practical, administrative and broadcast restrictions, and we are working within those strictures.

I do not dispute that that is frustrating. As a Government, as the usual channels and as the House authorities, we are doing our best to facilitate the Virtual Proceedings, but I am afraid there are limits to what everyone is able to do. I know noble Lords are frustrated but I cannot stress enough how hard people are working—and the hours they are working—to do this. The House of Commons is using broadcasting procedures, as is our House. This is not about trying to curtail discussion and debate, but about trying to facilitate as much as we can within the boundaries within which we are having to work. I am sorry to keep saying it, but it is important to put that on the record.

I am sorry that I cannot agree to the noble Lord’s request at this point—I am afraid it will not be possible—but I hope that everyone who participates in the debate enjoys their time in it. I have no doubt that they will make extremely important points that we as a Government and everyone listening will take into account and reflect on.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

I want simply to draw the noble Baroness’s attention to one reason why people find this frustrating: the repeated assertions about what was technically possible and possible for practical reasons have turned out not to be the case at all. She needs to understand that some of us have been working online and virtually for a long time and in many circumstances, both nationally and internationally. We know what is possible and what is not. There seems to be a lack either of imagination and creativity or of something else. She needs to understand that that is one reason why trust is breaking down on this point.

[Lord Adonis]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. How can I choose my words diplomatically? It is not credible to assert that it is not technically possible to sustain an online debate for longer than three hours, as the noble Baroness asserts. That is an assertion—she has hidden behind the technical difficulties—but I do not believe that it is credible. I participate in many virtual meetings that take longer than that. As far as I am aware, no aspect of Zoom means that a meeting cannot continue for more than three hours.

I am afraid we are coming to a sharp disagreement here. It is my view that the reason this is happening is to do not with the technical capacity of the House but with the Government’s desire to suppress debate. That is why, unless this issue is rectified soon, the noble Baroness will find significant ongoing controversy. The precise reason for that is that we are all taking seriously our duties as parliamentarians to consider the Covid-19 crisis and its impact on the country.

Walter Bagehot famously said that an assembly that does not meet is deficient in a primary degree. The House of Lords cannot undertake its responsibilities if it does not meet. Our duty is to see that we meet and give the proper consideration that we should to these weighty issues. I simply do not think that the arbitrary time limits that the noble Baroness seeks to impose are satisfactory or technically required. On that basis, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

House of Lords: Allowances

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alderdice]

At end to insert—

“7. The House of Lords Commission must determine whether the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 6 either

(a) should continue to be in effect, or

(b) should be replaced with an alternative entitlement to allowances,

and in either case must bring a resolution to that effect before this House on, or before, 30 June 2020.”

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, as a former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and now as a Deputy to the Lord Speaker, I tend to approach these issues not just from a party point of view but from an institutional point of view, trying to understand the impact of any decisions that might be made on the institutions that we are privileged to be able to serve.

Listening to a number of noble Lords across the House, it is clear to me that there is an increasing loss of trust that the House is being treated properly. Yesterday’s Private Notice Question, asked by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and the supplementary questions to it gave one example. However, the issue goes back much further than the Covid-19 outbreak—to, for example, suggestions that during restoration and renewal the House of Lords should be shuffled off to York, not in order to pay respect to the people in the north of England but to marginalise the influence of the House.

Recent briefings from 10 Downing Street about cutting out anyone over the age of 65 and moving to electing Peers are not thoughtful, creative comments but simply destructive threats whose purpose is to shut down debate in this place. Indeed, that seems to be the Government’s strategy. Having a very large majority in the House of Commons, it is only in your Lordships’ House that real, meaningful dissent is possible. Holding the Government to account is an essential role of Parliament, and that requires the possibility of not just asking questions of government but, from time to time, saying to government, “No, you’ve got it wrong.” In the case of this Government’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, it is clear that there have been misjudgments and mistakes, some very serious.

I hear Ministers trying to gloss over such questions by saying that there will be time to address them later. That is true, but the time to learn from the mishandling is not just afterwards in the preparation for the next global pandemic, which we all hope will be as far away as the last one a century ago; no, we need to learn lessons as quickly as possible now to save lives. The Government need to hear the reality of what is going on in the health and care sector and in society as a whole.

In such national crises, the initial posture of society is of course to rally round the Government in the hope of finding clear leadership. However, when things do not go well and we find that the level of deaths in our country is one of the worst and that government promises are misleading or unfulfilled, trust, very properly, gives way to criticism. If that criticism is not heard and heeded—for example, in your Lordships’ House—accountability is not fulfilled. If it is heard and heeded, accountability is fulfilled, but, if not, the criticism gives way to hostility and a breakdown of trust and working relationships.

One thing that emerged when I tabled this amendment was that it was not possible for the Opposition effectively to oppose the Government’s position. We are not able to vote in our virtual sittings, although the suggestion that this is not technically possible is, frankly, misleading. As we in the Liberal Democrat group have found, it is perfectly possible to vote using the reaction feature in the Zoom program if one wants votes to take place.

It was also made clear to me that the House authorities did not want votes to take place in the Chamber, the Lobbies or the Royal Gallery, despite arrangements having been made some time ago, because of anxieties about the health of clerking staff. As a doctor and a psychiatrist, I am of course very alert to such issues, but the result is that it is not possible for this House to vote on any issue or to be clear whether the Government’s position has the support of the House. We are told that it will be at least four or five weeks before that capacity is technically available to us in the virtual sittings.

I am very sceptical. It seems that there is an attempt by the Government’s strategist and senior advisor to ensure that your Lordships’ House is muzzled and sidelined during this time of national crisis, and, as populist and authoritarian leaders around the world are doing, to use this crisis to make permanent changes in favour of an untrammelled Executive. That is why I propose that by the end of June the House of Lords Commission should be required to put forward any proposals that it has, whether to continue the arrangements currently being pushed through or to have a return to more reasonable arrangements for the work of the House.

The noble Baroness and her colleagues may feel that what is being proposed is reasonable and appropriate—although to suggest to people in the world at large that working online is not real work at all is hardly appropriate—but if that is the case, the rest of your Lordships’ House would expect that those who make the decision should change their practices and reduce their allowances voluntarily to reduce their substantial emoluments as an indication of some measure of solidarity. After all, we have had too many examples already of leading figures making rules that apply to other people, but not observing them themselves in respect of the Covid-19 crisis.

This House has changed enormously since I came here almost a quarter of a century ago. Those journalists who do not trouble to read our Hansard or come down the Corridor to familiarise themselves with the House as it now is will not be familiar with the fact that there is now a much wider range of age, gender, ethnic and religious diversity, and, particularly, income. The House authorities ought also to appreciate that those who come from well beyond London and the south-east have particular needs if they are to properly represent the concerns of those in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England.

I do not agree with the terms of the Motion brought forward by the Leader of the House, but I have no real way of voting against it. I know from my experience in Northern Ireland that when people find that they cannot express their concerns by voting for change, it leads to a breakdown in trust and relationships, without which no institution or society can work harmoniously. That is why I appeal to her to find a way to take on board my request, which does not take away from the content of the Motion but simply requires it to be reviewed when one could reasonably expect that voting would be possible in a virtual sitting. There are various ways she could do this, and I hope that she will find a way.

I believe that the amendment would have the overwhelming support of the House if it could vote and show it. It is the welfare of the future of the House, not just now but in the long term, that is at stake. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I think that everybody on the commission and a large majority of your Lordships’ House accepts that during these unprecedented times and with us moving temporarily to a virtual House, it was right that the current allowance system should be changed and that Members should receive a reduced amount. There was disagreement on the commission about how much that reduction might be. I argued for a somewhat larger amount; others argued for a much lower figure. The figure in today’s Motion reflects what might be thought of as the centre of gravity of opinion on the commission.

As I said, I wholly accept that some reduction was appropriate. I declare an interest in that I am a recipient of allowances. However, I should point out for clarity that this proposal will, given the constraints on people speaking and the reduction in Select Committee sittings, result in reduction in allowances received by individual Members of between three-quarters and seven-eighths of what people might reasonably otherwise have expected to receive. This is particularly hard on people from Scotland, Wales and the English regions who have unbreakable rental contracts on flats in London. It must, therefore, be seen very much as a temporary expedient.

Any discussion on allowances must be framed against the question: what is the point of your Lordships’ House? Unless we are clear about that we cannot have any clarity about what value to ascribe to it.

Like all institutions, we have a temptation to exaggerate our own importance, but if Parliament ever had a crucial role to play, then it is at this moment in our national history when we are facing a combination of an immediate crisis and, looking forward, a clear need to reassess the nature of our economy and how to better run society for the benefit of all its members. Parliament is the pre-eminent forum for undertaking that role, and your Lordships’ House is an integral part of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am sure that all members of the commission—a number of whom are here today—including me, will take that on board. We meet regularly, and I am sure that such discussions will happen. The noble Lord is absolutely right: as this develops, there needs to be thinking on allowances, our proceedings and a move to a hybrid House. We will need to have regular conversations to make sure that we can come up with solutions that work for Members and for the business of this House.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this debate—a slightly longer one than perhaps we might have expected, but that shows the strength of concern and feeling. I confess to a degree of disappointment. I do not think that the noble Baroness, or the Government in general, quite understand the import of what was being said. I focused more on the institutional than the individual consequences, which other noble Lords spoke to— I shall not name everyone who participated.

As she finished, the noble Baroness spoke about the fact that we are expecting announcements at the weekend on what will happen, and of course we look forward to that. But it is another example of the same problem. Her right honourable friend the Prime Minister chose not to do it in the House of Commons but to do it on a Sunday evening, when he would be the focus. The Speaker in another place has made it clear that that is not proper parliamentary process or procedure. It is crucial that these matters are brought back to Parliament and that Parliament is given its place.

The noble Baroness could have, without accepting the amendment, given an undertaking to fulfil its requirements on her own word, and I would have accepted that. I think that we will all have to go away and reflect on the consequences. I hope that she and her colleagues will realise that they have now created a situation where trust has got to be built, rather than depended upon, because some of it has simply evaporated. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, as is the proper process in your Lordships’ House. I do so not because I agree with the Motion, but because it is what we have to do.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Iraq

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to identify myself with the appreciation expressed to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness the Lord Speaker and our staff in facilitating this important debate today.

The question that is being put to our colleagues in the other place is a very specific one about air strikes and military intervention in Iraq. Given the engagement that we have had in Iraq and the very specific request from the new Prime Minister of Iraq for assistance in defending his country against a brutal insurgency whose stated intention is the destruction of his country and other countries in the region, we have little alternative but to join the others in rendering such assistance as we can reasonably provide.

While it is the duty of Members of another place to vote on that specific question, it is the responsibility of your Lordships’ House to consider the wider questions and to proffer such constructive advice to Her Majesty’s Government as we can. The proposal being put to the House of Commons does not include engagement on Syrian territory, for obvious political and legal reasons, but this leaves a major lacuna in the military strategy, at least so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. Military means in Iraq—and indeed if extended to Syria, as our colleagues in the United States have done—may be able to contain ISIS’s rapid advance, and it would be a mistake to underestimate their importance. However, they will not be able to destroy or defeat ISIS, which President Obama appeared to claim in one of his earlier speeches. The defeat of ISIS will come about only when local Sunni populations, tribes and allied groups in ISIS-occupied territories turn against ISIS. That could be made more difficult if heavy air strikes alienate populations and create a common enemy. We must reflect on the enormous effort that was made against al-Qaeda, which did indeed reduce its capacity, but has created many other even more brutal organisations right across the region and much more widely.

As we think on these questions it seems to me that they point to wider questions about the strategy being adopted to the growing tragedy of the region and, indeed, the wider region. I want my noble friend the Minister to give an assurance and a commitment to a much more thorough-going examination of our national strategy, which must involve not only the wider Middle East, but the implications in north Africa, where already there are groups identifying with the caliphate and, of course, in respect of Russia, whose influence in Syria and more widely, is critical. Our relationship with Iran is also part of the changing character of our engagement. In that regard, I understand that for political reasons the Prime Minister and other colleagues speak passionately in terms of good and evil. Very wicked things are happening and there are people of evil intent and acts.

We must beware of thinking about the conflict in entirely Manichean terms of good and evil. Everyone on our side on this does not share our democratic values and our commitment to human rights. That fact in itself has contributed to the tragedy of the region. Let us add to our understanding from the excellent academic work being done at places such as the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence at King’s College London. I declare an interest as a patron and as director of the Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict at Harris Manchester College, Oxford.

We are in a very dangerous place. The whole of that region—and countries much more widely—are dissolving into chaos. This is not simply a war like in the past. It comes close to home because it affects many people here. It is inevitable that there will be those who will want to conduct atrocities in this country to prosecute the aims of ISIS and others. There is also the possibility—indeed, almost the inevitability—of a whole new generation of young people being drawn into the jihadist orbit, just like the Arab Afghans going to Afghanistan in the 1980s. This will preoccupy us for a long time.

Pope Francis indicated a fear on his part that we were falling piecemeal into a World War III. He is not a man who speaks lightly about these things. While there is a grave decision to be taken by our colleagues at the other end, it is made all the graver because we are slipping, at least in some parts of our world, into something of a dark age. We must pray that it does not last as long as the religious wars in our own continent some centuries ago.

EU Council

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to identify these Benches with the condolences to those who have been bereaved, the sympathy for the injured and the appreciation of the tremendous efforts being made by the emergency services in dealing with results of the storm.

I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Prime Minister. Much of it encourages me. I am encouraged to see improvements in our own economy and more widely. Thoughtful and appropriate deregulation is a useful step forward, although we have to be careful. Wider trade deals are bound to be very welcome, and that with Canada, with which we have such a long and friendly relationship, is particularly so, both for itself and for what it may lead to in the rest of North America.

I am also encouraged by developments on the e-commerce front although, as the Statement made clear, we have to be careful as it also opens opportunities for e-crime. I rather suspect that your Lordships’ House will have to face rather complex legislation over the next few years to deal with many aspects of this. It will not be easy because it will be a challenge for all of us to know exactly what we are legislating about in this area and to keep up with the changes.

I am encouraged by the clear statement that the way to deal with immigration problems is not to create a fortress Europe but to address the needs and problems of the countries from which people flee. They do not come because they are happy in their own countries: they come because they do not have a good future there. We have to try to help them improve on that.

Coming from my part of the United Kingdom, I have a particular perspective and a deep appreciation of the work that the intelligence services have done for us over many years in ensuring that our community did not fall apart and that we were able to engage later in a peace process. The intelligence services do important work for us and it is silent work at its best.

However, one part of the Statement gave me a little cause for concern. It was what the Prime Minister said in respect of countries outside the European Union and the eastern partnership. He said that we continue,

“to insist on proper standards of governance and justice that such a relationship should entail”.

Our right honourable friend the Prime Minister is right about that but in one country within the EU, Hungary, those standards of governance and justice simply do not apply any more, and it has been getting worse for a number of years. Sadly, this has been happening under the prime ministership of Viktor Orban. I knew him many years ago when he was, as he still is, the leader of Fidesz—in those days the young liberals. He was, like me, a vice-president of Liberal International and we served together on the officers’ board. I well remember the first thing that he did. Fidesz, because it consisted of young liberals, had a rule whereby when you were over 30 you had to resign and join the Alliance of Free Democrats. What did Viktor do? When he reached 30 he changed the rules, which has been and still represents one of his characteristics. When the rules tend to take away some of his power, he simply changes the rules. I remember well a meeting of the committee of Liberal International when he walked out and said that he was going to join a more conservative group. That is what he did and he has produced a more authoritarian country. My concern is that the Prime Minister entertained him in Downing Street this month before the European Council and friendly photographs are being used by Mr Orban in Hungary to show that this country is supportive of him. I seek a reassurance from my noble friend that the Prime Minister is pressing Mr Orban to address the real problems of authoritarianism, anti-immigration and the destruction of European values in that important part of the European Union.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I shall not resist the temptation to say that my noble friend has highlighted some of the dangers of joining the young liberals. I know that he makes a serious point about his concerns.

I am grateful for his support for the Statement more generally. I am sure that many will have heard his remarks about Hungary. As with all EU member states, Hungary is subject to clear obligations and has to adhere fully to the laws and values of the Union. I am sure my noble friend knows that earlier this year the Commission launched a detailed review to ensure that newly introduced legislation in Hungary was brought into line with accepted EU standards. I understand that Hungary has engaged with the Commission on that review and is making changes to its constitution that have addressed many of the concerns. We welcome Hungary’s engagement with the Commission on areas that fall within EU competence.

Patrick Finucane

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I thank the Prime Minister for instituting the de Silva inquiry and for his apologetic and sympathetic response to the Finucane family.

No Member of this House could listen to the Leader of the House reading out the Statement without being deeply shocked and dismayed at its horrifying content. This cannot be other than a source of national shame. One of our citizens was murdered in his own home with the collusion of state agents, and subsequently, for 23 years, there has been obstruction of the proper authorities in the investigation of these matters, including by senior officials in the Ministry of Defence, the police and security services, to the point, according to this report, that Ministers were lied to and misled, and they then misled Parliament. How is it possible to hold our own authorities to account if they are being so grossly misled in this way? This is a time for deep national shame and self reflection because it begs real questions.

It does no credit to our House to refuse to accept the clear reality of what went on. Authorities here must learn that you do not defend democracy by undermining the very principles of democracy, decency, honesty and of abiding by the proper law. I trust, although I frankly do not believe it, that some elements of government in Northern Ireland understand that playing footsie with paramilitaries and colluding with them, including in threats to some of my own friends recently, is no way to promote democracy. It is a travesty of democracy. How can we assure ourselves that these things will not happen in the future? We will not do so merely by responding to this Statement; I trust that there will be a full debate in your Lordships’ House and that we will properly learn the lessons, not by more inquiries but by more decisions as to how we hold these matters to account in the future.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I understand exactly what my noble friend is saying and the force with which he says it, with all the experience and knowledge that he has in his personal background and the part that he has played in Northern Ireland. He is right in saying that none of us could hear the Statement made by the Prime Minister without being deeply shocked and dismayed by what has happened—the level of collusion and the cover up that took place thereafter.

He said that it was a national shame and he is right, but part of dealing with that is to confront it by having the review that we have taken, publicising it and apologising for what happened. There is also the second point, which I think my noble friend was referring to, about what has changed and how to ensure that these things do not happen again. The background within which the security services operate is so entirely different from that existing in the late 1980s when there was no legal framework against which they operated.

RIPA 2000 created a proper legal and policy framework within which to gather intelligence. There is now therefore an unambiguous framework which puts all work relating to agents on a statutory footing and is designed to prevent the same mistakes and abuses being made today. RIPA is also underpinned by a range of non-statutory frameworks and codes of practice which set out clear processes for the day-to-day management of agents by relevant agencies. Managers, the PSNI and the security services are required to ensure that staff comply with this legislation. The Statement referred to the PSNI now being the police force with more scrutiny that any other in the world. I think that that is right.

Business of the House

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords—before my convenor speaks—is it not the case that the British constitution, in its wonderful unwritten form, consists of precedents, all of which have been developed in a completely pragmatic, evolutionary way in order to meet the circumstances of the day? It is indeed a different situation when we have a coalition like this and an issue like this. Is it not extraordinary that the Labour Party is the conservative force here that cannot keep up with these evolutionary, pragmatic changes which inevitably take place when we have a completely different situation with a coalition Government?

[Lord Alderdice]

Does my noble friend the Leader of the House share my curiosity that there was such unanimity in this House, and indeed in the other place, in welcoming the developments of very unusual forms of coalition in my part of the United Kingdom and regarding those as important pieces of political progress, and yet when it comes to having to face exactly the same kinds of issues of coalition together in this place, there seems to be a mixture of puzzlement and amusement? Would it not be wise for those who may find themselves in a coalition Government in the future to be a little more circumspect or they will find such matters being quoted against them, as has repeatedly been the case in the last little while on a number of matters of policy where the Labour Party in its previous incarnation said rather different things from what it has said while on the opposition Benches?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Surely this House is about holding the Government to account, and we have Statements so that we can hold the Government to account—not for people to issue their manifestos on particular issues. Surely the purpose of this House is to hold the Government to account, but we need someone to tell us what the Government’s policy is. We cannot have a pick-and-mix approach to government policy. Are we to find that Ministers speaking from the Front Bench give two answers to the same question? What conclusion can we reach if they give different answers to the same question?