Georgia

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I will not repeat it a third time because the noble Lord knows exactly what the Government’s position on sanctions is. The shocking scenes of violence towards protesters and journalists by the Georgian authorities are unacceptable and must stop. We are working with our allies to ensure that we can convey that message in the strongest possible terms. We are determined to uphold what is, after all, the constitutional position of Georgia. When I was there 18 months ago I saw that it has strong constitutional rights and very good laws, which are being breached by its Government. It is right that we stand up and point that out.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, we have close links with Georgia, and as a country we therefore have some clout. The European Union has more clout. What level and type of co-operation do we have with the European Union in respect of Georgia?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right and we are in regular contact with international partners, including the EU and the US. We are collaborating multilaterally, including on support for joint statements through the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the United Nations, where we have consistently called for human rights to be respected. We will work in consultation and in collaboration with our allies, because that is the most effective way we can ensure that they listen to us.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Earl that I shall not apply for an HGV licence—I am getting a little too crabbed with age for that.

It is difficult to add anything new to the debate that we have had since 1999, and of course today’s debate shows it. Having waited so long, I am tempted to intervene at least briefly. During that period, all options have been considered, and of course rejected, since the big bang of 1999. There have been some minor changes, with proposals on retirement, expulsion and so on, but even when there has been a consensus in your Lordships’ House and generally, such as on the Burns report, it has been rejected. I have heard many pleas this evening for yet further delay.

While we debate, numbers have increased, of course. Your Lordships’ House now has 804 Members, and the Conservatives have 86 more than the government party, Labour. I warned Mr Johnson’s Government that by recklessly increasing numbers he would provoke a counterreaction, and that perhaps is now the danger.

Even when I was in the House of Commons I voted against an elected Chamber. Why? I saw it as a recipe for conflict and that both legitimacies would challenge one another. There would be the danger of losing some expertise. I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said about what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, called the “warriors’ Bench”. There is too little practical military experience in your Lordships’ House, and we should seek to retain that.

The problem also is, if there were to be elections, we would be unlikely to see professionals wishing to join and seeking places on a party list. An elected House would be more partisan because of the process of election, and more parochial. I note that, when the Labour Peers’ working group produced a report in 2014, it suggested that there should be a referendum on an elected Chamber. They also talked about a constitutional convention. What is the Government’s policy on that?

Currently, the Government have brought forward very limited changes. They can of course make some hereditaries life Peers, or even delay their expulsion, but their removal is likely, which will reduce overall numbers and the imbalance for the Conservatives. As for the retirement age, why not combine this with a fixed term, particularly now that we are seeing more appointments at the age of 30 or so?

What are the principles for moving forward? We wish to retain the expertise and quality of scrutiny, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, mentioned, post-legislative scrutiny. We must deal with the inflation of numbers, perhaps using the Burns formula. We must reform the appointments procedures, perhaps again following the Norton Bill of 2022. We must eliminate the bias in favour of London and the south-east, and perhaps bring the devolved Administrations into the process. Diversity means that we should reduce the number of Bishops and add other faiths and denominations, but we should be careful of unintended consequences, such as an unthinking move to disestablishment or to a written constitution.

Overall, I support the Government’s gradualist approach, which is a step on the road to what I concede is an unknown destination, broadening down from precedent to precedent, as the old adage goes. As someone who is likely to die, at least politically, as a result of the Bill, and likely to be a victim of the process, I salute the Government’s proposals.

International Engagements

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The invitation extended by the representatives of the Government has nothing to do with that. There was no issue about advice or a challenge. The timing is very much up to the people who invited the former president of Taiwan and certainly nothing to do with the Foreign Secretary’s visit to China at all.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that a key justification of the Commonwealth is allowing smaller countries, particularly island countries, to walk tall? Is there not a danger that reparations could be a diversion from the real tasks facing the Commonwealth today? I fear that that issue will not go away, however. Is there not a danger also that expectations will be raised and we will be led unwillingly along a path we do not want to take?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

All I can say is that genuine concern is being expressed. The transatlantic slave trade is a diabolical stain on our history, and we do have to remember what happened in the past, condemn it and say why it was entirely unacceptable. That is the sort of dialogue we need to have with our partners in the Commonwealth. What I do know is that the agenda discussed at CHOGM was far more extensive and was looking to the future, particularly that of small, developing island states, which will experience the huge impact of climate change. I was at several launch meetings in CHOGM where we directly addressed that issue by providing information and support. The Commonwealth is dynamic and forward-looking, and I have every confidence we will be able to face the challenges of the future.

Sudan

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I join colleagues in congratulating my noble friend Lord Collins on his appointment, on his speech and on his initiative in holding this debate. One thing that has struck me forcibly is the reservoir of expertise revealed by every speaker. It is, dare I say, rather humbling for someone with fairly limited experience of Sudan.

I recall that the Sudan civil service had a fine reputation. The background is that Sudan became independent in 1956 and, since that time, its history has been characterised by turbulence and violence. I was in Sudan in 1967 and met, at his home, Sadiq al-Mahdi, who was then considered to be the great potential for peacekeeping. Alas, it was not the case, and now, since April last year, a war has been led by two warlord generals and appears to wholly ignore the plight of the people. I shall not go over all the statistics—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have set them out, and perhaps there is no merit in repeating them. But the catastrophe is appalling.

I recall that, earlier in the debate, the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Suttie, mentioned that very little attention has been paid in the British press to the catastrophe in Sudan. I would argue to the contrary that, latterly, there has been a flurry of attention—I refer to articles in the Sunday Times, the Economist and the Financial Times, and let us not forget that, in the Library publication, there was a helpful summary of the problem in Sudan.

The Economist of 31 August had a leader and a special briefing headed: “Why Sudan’s catastrophic war is the world’s problem”. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, sermonised on that text. It said the catastrophic conflict

“could kill millions—and spread chaos across Africa and the Middle East”,

causing

“the world’s worst famine in 40 years”—

presumably referring to the crisis in Ethiopia in 1984, which received so much attention. We had special concerts and petitions. One is bound to ask: what is the difference between Ethiopia then and Sudan now? We understand from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that there was a 40% shortfall in the fund for Sudan. Is it Gaza? Is it the other turbulence in the world? Is it aid fatigue? There is certainly a question about why there is such a difference.

We know that half the population is suffering from food insecurity. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, we are talking about a highly fragile neighbourhood. To the west is the Sahel, with all the turbulence and Islamism of that area. To the east is the Horn of Africa, with all its turbulence. Just a mere glance at the map of Sudan will show the number of fragile countries which surround it, including, of course, Libya to the north, which leaks arms to Sudan. Libya has in effect now been divided. Some commentators suggest that the possible solution in Sudan is further fragmentation after the loss of South Sudan, just as happened in Ethiopia with the loss of Eritrea and now with Somaliland possibly leaving Somalia.

It is a highly volatile region. If we find all the awful statistics of the human catastrophe unconvincing, surely self-interest should prevail. I repeat what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said about refugees. Who can blame ordinary families in Sudan seeing the choice as being between staying put, possibly being killed or starved and fleeing to the north to escape that conflict? The point has been made that 60% of those in Calais waiting to come to the UK come from Sudan. There is also the danger to the Suez Canal, adding to what the Houthis are doing to that vital shipping lane, and that of an implosion within Sudan itself, with Sudan becoming even more a failed state—a failed state for terrorism in that region and a failed state for Islamism and all other evils.

The second recent article to which I referred was by Alex de Waal on 1 September in the Sunday Times. I know him as a first-rate scholar, but with all respect to him, his article was brilliant in analysis but lacking in any form of solution save for increased aid, on which we would all agree.

The final report to which I shall give some attention is from the Financial Times on Tuesday of this week. It stressed the danger of fragmentation, citing the precedent of Libya, the extent to which there is a struggle for resources among the so-called great powers, which adds to the many complications of Sudan, and the role of gold on both sides.

Of course, food aid is our immediate problem, but longer-term stability depends on peace. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: what prospects are there? How can we map out a path to a solution, or is it all gloom at present, as the protagonists—or at least some of them—refuse to attend peace conferences? We know that, for them, it is a fight to the finish. One will win, one will lose; one will probably stay, one will go into exile. This is part of the problem: there appears to be no scope for compromise or for any intermediary. Does my noble friend see any potential intermediary on the horizon? There have been many attempts by the United Nations, by the African Union and by IGAD, but all have failed to broker a deal. Is there any prospect of curbing the arms supply? Sanctions have been mentioned. For example, if it be true that the Emiratis are supplying the RSF, we know that the US and others will not bring any pressure on them because they need their support for Gaza—it just adds to the many complexities of the situation.

What prospect is there of opening further parts of the border to supply aid? What more could we and the European Union do? We are the pen holder, and I believe that both sides, ourselves and the European Union, can seek to build up the strength of civil society. The most reverend Primate mentioned the role of the churches, which has always been important in Sudan. Surely there are signs of hope. Surely the world will now be ready to place Sudan further up the agenda of concern, and act.

The Importance of the Relationship Between the United Kingdom and India

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervene in the debate moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, as a long-standing member of the Indo-British All-Party Parliamentary Group and a great admirer of the dynamism of India, which will shortly be the most populous country in the world. I believe that our relationship is strong enough to bear the sort of criticism that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, mentioned.

India is very much a part of our past—we think of the East India Company and the British Empire—and of our present, with 3.1% of UK residents, or 1.6 million people, now of Indian background. It plays a positive role across the spectrum of activity in the UK, in business, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, education, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Parekh, hospitality, sport—we think of cricket—and health. Where would our NHS be without our Indians? I just had an operation and I think the consultant and virtually all his team were of Indian origin. In politics, it is surely remarkable that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland should be meeting to discuss the future of the union of this country. It is some indication of the changes which have taken place.

Of course, India is very much part of our future if we proceed realistically and with mutual respect, although there is a certain backlash to the so-called Indo-Pacific tilt of our defence policy. Nowadays, particularly post the invasion of Ukraine, people are thinking that the emphasis should be even more on the European role that we should play.

I recall a conference at which I looked across at the Indian delegation, saw the remarkable diversity—from the Tamils from the south to those from Nagaland in the north—and wondered how any federal government could keep together people of such diversity. It is done by a system of checks and balances, by respect and, of course, by the mutual working together of the Indian population.

That is why I, like the noble Lord, Lord Swire, am saddened by the response of the Indian Government to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, against all international norms. India abstained on key UN resolutions, refused to condemn the Russian invasion—what Russia calls a special military operation—and took refuge in generalisations on the protection of civilians and calls for a ceasefire. India has benefited from the breaking of sanctions, certainly in oil imports.

The key current basis for a bilateral relationship is the 2030 road map, formed in 2021. That is welcome but must be systematically and realistically given substance. I have one last reflection; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, will shoot me down speedily on it. It is triggered by George Osborne’s remark:

“There is a whole string of British governments who think there is a special relationship with India. My experience is that the Indians do not have that view of Britain.”


That is certainly my impression from my relationship with the Commonwealth. In my judgment, India does not have that same attachment, certainly at the ground level. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether the Government agree with that and equally—again, to follow a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swire—what expectation the Government have for a speedy resolution of the FTA negotiations.

The road map, with all its problems, gives us the opportunity to broaden and deepen our relationship—[Interruption.]

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, order.

Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to follow the right reverend Prelate on that point. As I tried to say in my earlier answers, the position of those in need will be at the forefront of the Government’s consideration. We know that people across the United Kingdom are worried about the cost of living; that is why the Government have announced £37 billion of support for the cost of living this financial year. In addition, the energy price guarantee and energy bill relief scheme are supporting households and businesses. We are also supporting millions of the most vulnerable households with £1,200 of on-off support. So far as specific decisions on benefits are concerned, they will have to wait for my right honourable friend’s Statement.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Is not the word “replacement” in the Question a euphemism for being ignominiously and publicly sacked? Was it really fair, just and moral to sack someone who was simply carrying out a jointly agreed policy with the Prime Minister?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I explained the reasons for the appointment of my right honourable friend, and I believe that it was a good appointment.

Afghanistan

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, in three minutes I will give three reflections. First, on the lessons of history, the noble Lord, Lord King, reminded us of the unwinnable wars of the 1840s and 1880s in Afghanistan when, in spite of the pledges of safe conduct, our people were massacred in the Khyber Pass. This led to the saying, “You cannot buy an Afghan, only rent one”—which may also help to explain the rapid collapse of the ANA and the unheroic handing over of towns without a fight. But of course we also recall the Soviet intervention in the 1980s, which President Gorbachev called the “bleeding wound”.

What is the Government’s best analysis of the reasons for the rapid defeat? What are the geopolitical consequences of that defeat? President Biden, alas, will be diminished, certainly abroad. Do the Government see any danger of the US retreating into a new isolationism, abandoning the aspirations of nation building, spreading democracy and human rights, and a corresponding loss of trust in the US? Some will repeat the wisdom of the old saying “Do not enter the box unless your exit is clear”.

For the UK, one lesson in reality is in the limits of a post-Brexit independent foreign policy. In spite of our military expenditure and expertise, when the US leaves, we leave. Our adversaries will be emboldened; the jihadists worldwide will celebrate; and there is a loss of trust in our pledged word and our ability to stay the course. Other lessons include that if we allow the pendulum of intervention—after the high point of the Chicago speech and the duty to protect—to swing too far in the opposite direction, it will be to our disadvantage.

How do we respond to the reality of the Taliban? It depends, of course, ultimately on their conduct. Are they latter-day Bourbons or do we believe their PR people, which would be extremely naive? How united in fact are the Taliban and what is the best analysis we have of that? Yes, of course, bring out our citizens and those who depend on us—but we should be extremely generous, particularly in respect of women and girls. We have reduced our aid; who will lose out as a result of the doubling of that aid? Will our aid agencies, the NGOs, be allowed by the Taliban to operate freely?

We should build bridges where we can and where there is an overlap of interest, at least partially, with countries such as China and Russia. But we need to work particularly closely with Pakistan, which will assume a new importance in its regional role. In short, we should look long and learn the lessons of history, and we should remain very true to our own values.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

Last call for the noble Lord, Lord Flight.

Afghanistan

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

We have provided mentoring and support to dedicated units in the counter-narcotics police of Afghanistan. Since 2010, these units have seized 18 tonnes of heroin, 70 tonnes of opium, almost 1,700 weapons as well as $3 million and $100 million of assets. So, we have been working with the Afghan counter-narcotics police to tackle this trade and we will continue to do so.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab) [V]]

Would the noble Baroness agree that, given the rapid advances currently being made by the Taliban, there is little incentive for them to enter into peace talks, and so the turbulence is likely to persist for some time? Given that, what will be the effects on food aid to the needy? What advice are we giving to the aid agencies? What is the effect on the functioning of our embassy? Are we withdrawing personnel at the moment?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The UK embassy in Kabul will remain open after the end of the Resolute Support Mission. We take the protection of our staff extremely seriously and will keep security under constant review. In the immediate term, there will be a small number of troops, consistent with a diplomatic presence, that will remain to offer assurance to the international community in Kabul as we transfer to the end of the mission.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 13th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness set out a certain veneration for our constitution broadening down from precedent to precedent. However, surely the great virtue of our constitution has been that those who have had power have known when to yield it. There has also been a readiness to change when change is needed and not to seek to oppose any reform in a reactionary way until it becomes a tradition.

I also have an interest to declare. I am a Welsh peasant and would wish for my eldest son—for whom, like any good father, I have much admiration—to come to this place, but he should not do so except on his own merit. The problem is that we have a lottery of sons and only sons coming here—in a time when women quite properly have a greater and greater voice—simply because of what happened to their fathers in the past. Some obviously come here themselves on merit; others because their ancestors completed deeds of daring before the monarch; and others because they paid the right sum of money to Maundy Gregory for Liberal Party funds. I cannot recall any Liberal opposition to that at the time. Clearly, there are great differences in backgrounds.

We have been through this course on many occasions, including the two Second Readings which my noble friend Lord Grocott has brought forward. I congratulate him on his persistence. We are probably in a position where everything that can be said has been said, but I have not yet said it, so here it goes.

My first point is one of procedure. We have a position where obviously the great majority of people in this House—certainly as measured by the votes we have had in the past—are in favour of this incremental and piecemeal reform. But it has not happened, because a relatively small minority put roadblocks in the way of the Bill. Given the filibusters and flooding of the Order Paper with innumerable amendments that we have had in past, the powers that be should look at our own procedures to see whether there is any way of stopping merited reforms going forward. As a lapsed lawyer, the only argument of any merit that I can see against this Bill is that there was a degree of compromise in the deal done 20 years ago, but surely we have moved on massively since then. The context is different; it is a context of modernisation and where, as some well argue, the best should not be the enemy of the good.

What is it that sets apart the sons of hereditary Peers as different from the sons of other Peers? Is it superior intellect? That may or may not be the case. Is it some background that myself and others do not have? Is it other forms of merit—some contribution to the benefit of this country as a whole? That may be, but then, like the rest of us, they can be appointed on their own merits, rather than as a result of any merits of their fathers. I very much accept that our own hereditaries play a disproportionate part; that point was made very well indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. In future, however, a place in this Chamber should not arise from the merits or otherwise of Peers’ fathers but because of their own merits; it should be by proper selection and not by the terms of a lottery.

Leaving the European Union

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

This is the mother of all shambles. The message is clear: the Government are limping towards an extension, contrary to all the promises that have been made—and, crabwise, the Government are surely moving towards a people’s vote.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but that is not the case. The Government are working towards a deal. We are working towards getting the changes to the backstop that the House of Commons desires and we will bring back a deal that we believe will command the support of the House.