Ukraine

Lord Glasman Excerpts

Friday 26th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Glasman (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for initiating this debate and his excellent opening remarks. I am proud to sit behind my noble friend Lord Coaker and my party in relation to our approach to the war in Ukraine.

I have been to Ukraine for maybe up to four months since the war began. I have been four times, all over the country; I spent a lot of time in Kyiv and in Odesa. Two very intense and conflicting emotions characterise the people of Ukraine. The first is a visceral loathing of Russia and a desire to protect their homeland and their freedom. The second is a genuine weariness with the war and a genuine sense of grief over the loss. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, mentioned the 300,000 Russian dead, but he did not mention what looks to be over 200,000 Ukrainian dead over this period—a huge number relative to the size of the country.

I also commend the Government on the policy they have pursued from the outset. One of the very strange experiences of being in Ukraine is the uniform affection for Britain that characterises people throughout it. We have established trust, which is an incredible thing. It is to be noted, as well, through the Belvedere process and other things that the noble Lord, Lord Risby, mentioned very powerfully, that we have assumed a leadership position in relation to the eastern European states, most particularly Poland but also the Baltic states. I noticed that Scandinavia too is looking to Britain for not just military leadership but political leadership.

This is an extraordinary circumstance, not unrelated to the fact that Germany and France both remain deeply confused, which we have not mentioned in this debate so far. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, mentioned that one rule of politics is that it is not what you say but what is heard; I commend to the House the other golden rule of politics, as developed by Muhammad Ali, which is that you never get knocked down by a punch you see coming. It seems that Germany and France are still both reeling around; they still cannot comprehend the scale of this. It is important to note that the two new parties that have come out explicitly for peace in Germany—the AfD and the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance —are both now polling above any of the coalition partners in the German Government. There is a very strong feeling within Germany; we also know that Le Pen in France, who is most in favour of peace in the Russia-Ukraine war, is also leading in the polls. Extraordinarily, we have an outstanding capacity, as the noble Lord, Lord Risby, pointed out, to actually take a leading role if we can co-ordinate with the different aspects of the help.

I also commend the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith. I do not think that there is any significant difference between Vladimir Putin, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great in terms of besieged imperial Russia. But I have one element of dissent; the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said that this is not an academic debate, and I apologise to him—it is really difficult to leave the field. In international relations terms, I am a realist. The words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have to be heard very strongly in the long-term development of our capacity within defence, most particularly the Navy.

That brings me to my one area of dissent with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, which is also with the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. The port of Odesa is essentially besieged by the Russian army. Very little gets in. Some stuff is allowed out, but this is leading to long-term consequences for the import of the fundamental needs of Ukraine, such as white goods and medicines. Everything is coming in from Poland by land, which is 10 times the price. Effectively, Ukraine has been cut off from Black Sea trade, which is stymied.

Building on other contributions—I will be as brief as I can—we have to conceptualise some form of ceasefire here strategically, so that we can build up our arms and long-term strategic relationships with partners. Therefore, we have to acknowledge that the assumption that was very prevalent at the beginning of the war—that Russia would fall; that Putin would fall—is in the levels of fantasy. The Russian state has consolidated its alliances with China and North Korea, and, particularly in drone technology, with Iran. These are very serious, but the economic sanctions we imposed have not had the effect we wished. Therefore, Russian interests and capacities have to form part of our calculation of how we pursue this.

The first conclusion is that we need to build up our own, which will take several years to do, but we also have a great interest in some form of ceasefire because the losses inflicted on Ukraine are, frankly, unendurable. We have to notice the looming dark shadow: President Trump will not even meet representatives of the Ukrainian Government. It is not that he is indifferent; he is actively hostile. So we will have to bear an enormous burden. One aspect of the ceasefire would be to go back to a previous tradition: like Gdańsk or Danzig in the First World War, Odesa becomes a free city so that the Russians lift their naval blockade. That would enable Ukraine to reconstruct its economy and rebuild its civic institutions.

Hong Kong: Human Rights

Lord Glasman Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Glasman (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for initiating this debate. I agree with much that has been said, but I shall make one distinctive contribution about how we should go about this, which is that we could take a lead in building a coalition of islands, including Japan and Taiwan as well as Hong Kong, and including the West Indies, Sri Lanka and New Zealand. We have three mutual interests here: combating rising sea levels; ensuring the freedom of the seas; and resisting mainland domination. Islands are distinctive things and such an approach would bind Hong Kong closer to us.

Older People: Their Place and Contribution in Society

Lord Glasman Excerpts

Friday 14th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Glasman]

My Lords, I echo the sentiments of the House in honouring the most reverend Primate for the grace, intelligence and complexity that he has brought to public life. I certainly express my personal, very great debt for the concept of paradox that he brought to me—that tradition is necessary for modernity, that faith will play a central role in the fulfilment of citizenship and, above all, that we find individual fulfilment through our relationships. These are absolutely necessary aspects of the changes that we need to make in the way that we understand the world.

In terms of this debate, I know that the most reverend Primate is now going to re-enter academic life, so I shall gently remind him what it is like. I want to talk about the slight concern that I have with the thinness of the concept of resource. When we think of human beings in terms of human resources, we diminish them in almost every case. When we think of older people, we think of an inheritance. We think of something that constitutes us that is not simply a resource to be used but something that is part of us. In that spirit, I should like to talk about one very practical aspect of how we have to change our conceptualisation of older people, and that is by renewing the idea of vocation. We have an imminent problem, which could be viewed as a resource problem. When we have a resource problem, what do we do? We import people and try to do some training.

I should like to introduce a new concept to the House. We talk about lifelong learning; I would say, in honour of what the most reverend Primate has taught me, that we have to talk about lifelong teaching. It is the partner to lifelong learning, and the greatest degree of neglect that we show older people is when we cut them off from their teaching role in society. A tragedy that is yet to be redeemed in our society is the abandonment of the wisdom, the skills and, above all, the experience of old people and the virtues which they still have and which we desperately need. It may be the case that my generation and generations younger than mine have neglected skill, virtue, honour, tenacity and fidelity in the workplace, but older people still have an echo of that, and it is a virtue that young people have to relearn. Therefore, when we think of vocation and of renewing skills, it is absolutely essential that we bring older people back into teaching and passing on the skills that need to be renewed.

Two very good ideas have been raised today. One was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and concerned the chaplaincy. This is a much neglected area. The University of Cambridge is a very effective, modern institution, and one reason that it is a modern institution is that it has preserved its traditions, its institutions and its relationality. One of the key ways it has done that is through the chaplaincies. The chaplaincies within the colleges are not an irrelevant luxury; they are not to be subsumed within the human resource diktats of student retention and progression. They are a way in which the colleges have retained humanity and a set of relationships.

The hospital idea—that the chaplaincy should honour humanity and always oppose neglect and abuse—is fantastic. This is a classic way in which tradition and modernity meet. However, to go further, we have to reconceptualise our skills so that we view the old as a resource, certainly, but also as a constitutive part of the way that we shape the future. On progression, while you hear of a professional foul, you never hear of a vocational foul. It is an important addition that old people should be put in positions of status and power.

When I first came into this House I was amused by the concept of elevation and my children made a lot of jokes about it. However, I have been truly elevated by the company here; by older people having status, power and authority. It is very rare in the whole realm to have institutions where older people are heard, but this is one of them. In this very important debate, I urge that we take practical steps to reintegrate older people into the training of the young. The primary contribution that faith makes to citizenship at the moment is that, unlike in many secular institutions, there is still an honouring of the elder in the faith tradition. We can learn from that and return it into the way we train people in vocation so that the abandoned workers of the past three decades, such as shipbuilders, can finally be given status and honour in reconstituting the common good, not the least part of which is intergenerational.

One of the great problems that we have is the segmentation of ages. We know that Christmas is coming; I do not want to rehearse the data about the older people with children and family who will be alone. This is heartbreaking in itself but, as the most reverend Primate said earlier, it is really about marketing being segmented according to age. However, genuine goodness always brings people of different ages together in relationship—not through a sense of moral obligation but through learning and growing. That is not only through prayer and eating together, it is through the other practices of the working life.

In considering that beautiful phrase of calling our attention to the place and contribution of older people, we must look at how the older generation are going to constitute the flourishing of the young. We cannot deal with the issues of the young without honouring the old and bringing them into relationship with the young to pass on the traditions which they hold.