Cyber Threats

Viscount Waverley Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Viscount Waverley]

To move that this House takes note of the scale and complexity of cyber threats facing the United Kingdom and the case for innovative approaches across Her Majesty’s Government and beyond.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, I move this Motion with the purpose of bringing added awareness on the crucial issue of cyber threats that face the United Kingdom. I shall bring an internal and international dimension to my remarks and in doing so, I thank those contributing.

This debate follows on the heels of a keynote speech at the National Cyber Security Centre by Mr Lidington of the Cabinet Office. The responsibility of government is to provide the first line of security and last line of defence. I therefore reference the underpinning of the UK Defence Doctrine, from which every enabling activity emanates. Scrutiny of the required outputs, matched against clearly defined intent, is essential to gain understanding of the required operating framework and ensure the supporting capacity is capable and sufficient. The complexity and scale of the interconnected world has brought benefits, but also poses immense challenges. Cyber activity, in this world of obfuscation, is a worldwide phenomenon and affects us all. The entire social infrastructure of how we communicate and live our lives has altered permanently, and so the need for mechanisms to monitor, detect, protect against and repel incursions constitutes challenges faced by all cyber experts globally.

From the use of capabilities in battlespace operations during military warfare to cybercrime, state-actor interference in other sovereign states’ critical national infrastructure and governance silos to the much-vaunted cyber interventions in national electoral processes, cyber confrontations have transformed 21st-century societies. Cybersecurity is a huge problem, and the global response is not moving at the speed needed. “Planning for the worst” should be the mantra. A major challenge is that it is hard to investigate given the non-sharing of intelligence between agencies, the inconsistency of the approach of Interpol and the lack of direct communication between banks, for example, which all compound the problem.

Another challenge is that companies often resist investing fully in their IT infrastructure and cybersecurity, believing it cheaper to clean up a mess than to prevent it in the first place. Reputational and financial damage is too often caused by not taking these threats seriously. The poor handling of breaches may also reveal deeper corporate failings. Threats will grow in volume and severity as criminal gangs gain access to more sophisticated tools and become reckless in using them. Mandatory reporting of cyber breaches has begun in some countries, but more must be done to raise awareness of the global nature of the threats. There is a call for an international outcomes-based approach to governance and regulation, to demonstrate the challenge of global cyber governance amid conflicting visions and approaches, and to set out the strategic direction of where we go and where we want to be.

The UK could lead the way. The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre is raising resilience in both corporate and government arenas and deepening its intelligence exchange. However, the task is so immense that the Government alone do not have the resources to face up to this issue. The solution lies in partnership—essential partnership between public and private sectors, and between states and agencies.

Another challenge is to agree cross-border rules of the game and the legal framework to enshrine them. There are too many gaps and inconsistencies between the way that different agencies collect, process and use evidence. Threat intelligence, for example, should not be beholden to the vagaries of political impasse. Cybercrime networks are international and have merged with organised crime covering terrorism, human trafficking, drug trafficking and child abuse. A keyword throughout should be “awareness”; government should work to ensure businesses are aware of the manifold initiatives and their contribution to them, and convince them of the need to view cybersecurity skills within businesses as a priority. Lack of skilled workers makes this harder. Can the Minister set out measures that will fill the shortage of the necessary skills and so put us in a stronger position in years ahead? The UK has become a leader in the use of outcomes-based regulation to influence the right behaviours. The approach taken with GDPR, the NIS directive and the ONR’s approach to nuclear cybersecurity suggests that the UK is creating the right environment.

While the UK has embraced and is implementing GDPR, other major states both inside and outside the European Union have been slow on the uptake. Cybercrime requires a united global response, as no single Government can act alone. As we prepare to leave the EU, we must call on international partners through groupings such as NATO, the Five Eyes, the UN and the Commonwealth to legislate more effectively. HMG should underpin international action and exert influence by investing in increased partnerships, including developing relationships with new partners to build on the levels of cybersecurity and protect UK interests overseas. The Five Eyes co-operation pledged at the end of August to make greater effort to attribute cyberattacks. This is welcome. The alliance has pledged to share more information between its cyber watch offices and, further, has plans to share risk assessments and certification practices to secure supply chain vulnerabilities.

The Commonwealth is embracing cyber development: the Commonwealth Cyber Declaration sets out a pragmatic vision for a free and open internet across the Commonwealth and a shared desire to build more resilient digital economies. The UK has an opportunity to share with Commonwealth countries the outcomes-based regulatory approaches that we are adopting to drive cyber resilience. Rwanda’s 2020 CHOGM will offer a milestone for what progress has been achieved. On a point of detail and given the increased importance of the Commonwealth in a post-Brexit world, will the Minister share an update on how the UK’s £15 million commitment to help review the national cybersecurity capacity of Commonwealth members and improve their capabilities has been spent to date, and detail what private sector innovation has been brought to bear?

It is understood that NATO formally recognises cyberspace as the new frontier in defence. The UK has offered both support and leadership to the establishment of NATO’s new cyber operations centre in Mons. This centre will not be fully operational until 2023, leaving unanswered fundamental questions regarding UK doctrine, capability and capacity in this intervening period. Can the Minister therefore outline what the UK’s position is for these gap years?

In addition, and within the military space, the UK and NATO cyber doctrine does not include a sufficiently common approach, including the underpinning doctrine that informs and directs supporting and enabling activities. It is perceived that the UK, extending to NATO, demonstrates an interoperable capability gap. It is felt that in adversarial activity we are outmatched due to being outnumbered but, more importantly, being doctrinally outmanoeuvred.

On the international front, Russia’s capabilities and techniques are well- documented. Considerable emphasis is placed on internet and related higher education. The Skolkovo Foundation in Moscow and the emerging Innopolis facility outside Kazan have active programmes further to develop internet technologies and offer a programme of start-up partnerships, which extends globally. Interestingly, the two driving forces behind the Innopolis city both attended Manchester University. In addition, the opening of a cyber school, as a centre for advanced cybersecurity education, was announced last night. The school will offer a variety of hands-on education programmes tailored for a wide range of people with different levels of cybersecurity qualifications and skills, from school and university students to cybersecurity experts. It is a useful idea that we should replicate in the UK.

As much attention has been focused on Russia in recent years, I will turn more specifically to a country that is fast assuming the mantle of world leader in cyber development: China. Its President has outlined plans to turn China into a cyber superpower. Through domestic regulations, technological innovation and foreign policy, China aims to build an impregnable cyber defence system and, increasingly, a separate government-controlled internet. State-led efforts in that country are central, with a focus on innovation in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and robotics, among other technologies. The Cyberspace Administration of China has responsibility for controlling online content, bolstering cybersecurity and developing its digital economy. Its investment in research and development now stands at 17% of global R&D spend.

However, Chinese policymakers are increasingly wary of the risk of cyberattacks on governmental and private networks, which could disrupt the control of critical services and impact economic growth. China has created an interlocking framework of laws, regulations and standards to increase cybersecurity and safeguard data in governmental and private systems, with surveillance a key feature, aided by facial and voice recognition software and artificial intelligence. It has required companies—this has become a trend—to store data within China, where the Government will have few obstacles to accessing it. Others adopt similar arrangements. It should be noted that that access compounds the potential for abuse and corruption by state interests.

Those who will lead in fundamental and applied research into quantum physics, quantum cryptography and quantum blockchain development will develop an edge. The night before last, I attended an artificial intelligence session promoted by the China APPG, together with the Chinese embassy, centred on the theme of potential partnership between our countries. The importance of the development of secure communications infrastructure by looking to the developments of quantum is the route forward and presents opportunities for the Government and the private sector to benefit from secure conferencing and secure data transfer.

That said—and this illustrates the overall environment—although quantum computers are still in their infancy, organisations such as the NIST estimate that mature quantum computers will be able to crack our public key encryption infrastructure within 15 years. So the race is now on to develop hybrid solutions to protect current and future data from the power of those quantum computers. Failure will rest with the international community if it does not come together with a collective approach to pass regulation and standards in the form of an international treaty or agreement.

So what should be done, and by whom, to rein in cyber threats? UN Secretary-General Guterres recently commented:

“I think it’s high time to have a serious discussion about the international legal framework in which cyberwars take place”.


Yet the last UN discussions by a group of experts took place in 2017, with no consensus being reached. However, the UN is the best forum to deal with this. I encourage the Secretary-General to grab the bull by the horns.

With all that as background, where should we go from here? I venture 15 specific initiatives, in no order of importance. These are: to support a call for a global move to outcomes-based regulation and legislation, as opposed to the mandating of standards, to form a regulatory framework that forces dialogue between friends and foes alike; to implement initiatives to limit inappropriate meddling that sows discord, either domestically or from abroad; to enable enhanced co-operation within the public sector and continuous dialogue with the private sector; to recognise that the private sector will play a central role in future international cyber governance; to establish a mechanism whereby financial services institutions are enabled to share information and intelligence, and work together more quickly and effectively; to encourage further development of the cyber-insurance industry to bridge the gap between the identification of liability and the lack of data consistency; to define a universal understanding of “cybercrime”, “cyberattack” and “cyber threat”; to promote Governments coming together through the United Nations to take an approach that treats cybersecurity in a sphere of its own; to strengthen the incident response functions of the NCSC and, in doing so, provide clearer guidance on what a reportable incident actually is; to promote advances in the practical application of quantum physics to achieve secure communications channels; to establish a cyber school for advanced cybersecurity education; to place maximum endeavour in technical co-ordination and information sharing; to encourage financial services to take a peer-to-peer approach to tackling cybercrime, starting with greater dialogue between major banks; to encourage international cybersecurity information-sharing partner- ships and further support sector-specific information-sharing centres; and finally, but possibly most importantly, to promote global discourse.

I conclude with five questions to the Government that I shall place as Written Questions today to allow the Minister appropriate space to respond fully. For the record, they are: what is the Government’s definition of a cyberattack and who will decide on the response? What are government departments doing to achieve agreed outcomes in cyberspace? Have those departments developed robust mechanisms so that there are parallel agreed outcomes across all ministerial silos? What role should the private sector play in assisting the Government with cybersecurity? Finally, but importantly, will HMG outline their achievements to date on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy’s report Cyber Security Skills and the UK’s Critical National Infrastructure?

I end where I began: if this debate achieves little more than assisting in underpinning the essential need for acute awareness of these critical issues, I believe we will have done our duty. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Waverley]

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will agree that this debate has achieved a practical purpose. I thank them for the scope of points that have been covered. Among the many observations that have come to light, the sharing of concerns regarding 5G has relevance, and we must pay attention to it as it develops.

It has been highlighted that we must encourage companies to invest fully in their infrastructure and cybersecurity. It is through education and clarification that we ask citizens to take the necessary steps to make our country and them more resilient. I underline again that cybercrime requires a global response, and no Government can act alone. With that said, I commend the Motion.

Motion agreed.

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

Viscount Waverley Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 7th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has full support from these Benches. The principle is entirely right. It is very important that we improve the reputation of this House by ending what is considered to be a farcical process of continuing to conduct hereditary by-elections. The Burns report has been referred to several times already. The Bill would actually assist the process of bringing forward Burns, which will face some problems if we do not bring an end to the hereditary by-elections because of the issue that has been raised about having a higher proportion of hereditary Peers in the House, unless we do something to stop them.

There is nothing with which I disagree in the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I recall that in 2010 the then Labour Government, in their Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, brought forward the abolition of hereditary by-elections and received majority support in the House of Commons. One reason why the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, should be approved is to allow the Commons to vote on the issue; if we do not approve it, the Commons will not have that say. That being said, in my view the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, adds nothing to the debate. There is nothing with which I disagree but it takes up precious time and encourages the perception that there is a filibuster trying to prevent the Bill being approved. The filibuster itself brings the House into disrepute. That is enough said; I urge Members of the House to say no more than necessary in order to move on with the business, approve the Bill and discard what I consider to be irrelevant regret Motions.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, the time for practicalities has arrived. Without wishing to incur the wrath of those who remain, those in line and those who kindly enable me to stay on, the time has come to recognise that if a strategy manifestly will not deliver, dithering must end. However, I wish to counsel against endless new appointments until the whole question of this second Chamber is satisfactorily resolved—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, made this point earlier. At this stage, matters relating to Burns or any other way in which we can move on with this whole question must surely be taken. Why not today?

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, the Burns report is a question which is not before you. This is simply not a fatal Motion. It will not stop the progress of the Bill, on which there are mixed views among us. It merely expresses the opinion that this job ought to be done by central government. With that proposition I entirely agree, for reasons which will no doubt be extended later in the debate. The question is simply whether we can say to Her Majesty’s Government with a resounding voice—in unison, I hope—that they ought to get on with this. That will then be in their ears when they come to look again at Burns.

Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun Freezing Order 2018

Viscount Waverley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the 2018 order was laid before both Houses on 19 January of this year and came into force on 22 January. This was to ensure that there was no gap in the freezing measures enforced against Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun the day after the publication of the Litvinenko inquiry report on 21 January 2016. The order was debated and approved in the other place on 8 February.

Noble Lords will not need to be reminded that the independent inquiry, chaired by Sir Robert Owen, concluded that Alexander Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned in 2006 by Lugovoy and Kovtun through the use of polonium-210, a radioactive isotope. The inquiry also concluded that there was a “strong probability” that Litvinenko, an ex-KGB and ex-FSB officer and a critic of the Russian Government, was murdered on the order of the FSB, the Russian domestic security service. Furthermore, the killing was “probably approved” by the then head of the FSB, Nikolai Patrushev, and the Russian President, Vladimir Putin.

In response to the seriousness of the report’s conclusions, the Treasury imposed an asset freeze on Lugovoy and Kovtun on 22 January 2016 by making a freezing order under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The 2016 freezing order had the effect of freezing any funds or assets that these two individuals held in the UK or with any UK-incorporated entities, denying them access to the UK financial system and prohibiting UK persons from making funds available to them. The Treasury routinely monitors information provided on financial sanctions on all designated persons. During the two-year period, no relevant information was received in respect of Lugovoy and Kovtun.

Under Section 8 of the Act, the duration of a freezing order is limited to two years. During that two years, the Treasury is required, by Section 7 of the Act, to keep the order under review. In order to maintain the asset freeze, the Treasury was required to review the case and to decide whether to make a new order. The Treasury has conducted such a review and has decided to make a new freezing order.

The Treasury believes that making a new order remains an appropriate and proportionate measure to take. It will ensure that any assets discovered in the UK that belong to the two individuals are immediately frozen, and it will prevent the men trying to access the UK financial sector. The relevant conditions required to be met, in accordance with Section 4 of the Act, are still being met today—the Treasury reasonably believes that action constituting a threat to the life or property of one or more nationals of the UK or residents of the UK has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons resident in a country or territory outside the UK.

The freezing order is one of a limited number of measures available to the UK authorities as a means of acting directly against Lugovoy and Kovtun. The other actions include Interpol red notices and European arrest warrants, which also remain in place. The Russian authorities’ refusal to accede to extradition requests following the murder of Mr Litvinenko and their lack of co-operation with the inquiry have blocked progress being made by the Metropolitan Police investigation into Lugovoy and Kovtun. There is therefore little prospect of bringing them to trial in a British court.

However, we continue to believe that the freezing order acts as a deterrent and as a clear signal that this Government will not tolerate such acts on British soil and will take firm steps to defend our national security and rule of law. Failure to renew the asset freezes against Lugovoy and Kovtun would, I believe, risk reinforcing a damaging signal that the consequences of murder carried out in the UK are few and time-limited, and that it is possible to evade the UK justice system by fleeing overseas.

Noble Lords will be aware that the UK’s relationship with the Russian Government remains strictly limited as a result of the Litvinenko assassination and the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. We continue to engage with Russia on a guarded basis, defending UK national security where necessary. We will continue to pressure the Russian Government to do more to co-operate with the investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s death. This includes the extradition of the main suspects, the provision of satisfactory answers, and an accounting of the role and activities of its security services.

This new freezing order maintains the asset freeze originally imposed by a similar order passed in 2016. It acts as a deterrent and a signal that the UK will not tolerate such acts on British soil and that we will defend our national security and the rule of law. I beg to move.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, following the protocol to declare such interests, I do so, informing the House that I am a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Russia.

It is the nature of the challenge—the noble Lord, Lord Young, touched on this—that UK/Russia relations can charitably be defined as fraught. However, for ever wishing to see justice adhered to, and given that Russia is highly unlikely to agree to the extradition to the United Kingdom, not least because under the Russian constitution no Russian can be extradited if it undermines their citizens’ rights—in addition to the concern that in the UK the proceedings were, I understand, held in camera, thus suggesting to the Russians that this process is all being conducted in secrecy—I understand that there is a willingness by Russia to make these two men available for interview or for a process through a mechanism such as Skype or some other such means.

I want to make one point about something that troubles me. The Foreign Secretary travelled for a bilateral meeting in Moscow with his opposite number, Foreign Minister Lavrov, on 22 December, but I understand that the Foreign Secretary failed to discuss this case with Minister Lavrov. Since the case of Mr Litvinenko is a plank of UK foreign policy towards Russia, this is surprising to me, to say the least, as it sends conflicting messages to the Russians.

Given that background, would it not be more practical to consider encouraging other jurisdictions to assist—for example, by calling on the International Court of Justice to play a role and, in effect, lend good offices to allow for a fair hearing to be conducted? That would in no way suggest that the individuals in question would not receive a fair hearing here in the UK.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the Government for taking this action. I also commend my right honourable friend the Security Minister in the other place for his comments about the assets of many people that have been brought here. They are probably illegally obtained moneys and are now held by oligarchs in this country who are laundering them through the banks here and buying up a great deal of London real estate.

I have been put on a stop list and cannot go to Russia. I would rather like to go to St Petersburg, never having been. I have probably been put on the stop list because I said something slightly disobliging about President Putin a few years ago. I urge the Government not just to pursue this matter but to be really fierce with the Russian Government, as I believe our Foreign Secretary has been. If the Russian Government get away with it, they will continue to get away with it and life will get worse, not better.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Viscount Waverley Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, in April this year a by-election took place in Westminster. It was a by-election for a seat in Parliament so I suppose we should call it a parliamentary by-election. There were seven candidates contesting the seat; the electorate was three. On 18 April, the result was declared. There were no spoilt papers; the turnout was 100%. The figures were as follows: Lord Calverley, no votes; the Earl of Carlisle, no votes; Lord Kennet, no votes; Earl Lloyd-George, no votes; Earl Russell, no votes; Lord Somerleyton, no votes; Viscount Thurso, three. So it was declared that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, was to be the new Member of Parliament. The total cost of the election was £300, which is £100 for each vote cast. To achieve 100% of the votes cast in an election is spectacular, even by North Korean standards, and to hold an election where there are more than twice as many candidates as voters deserves an entry in the Guinness book of records. I am not, of course, in any way criticising those who took part in the election, nor do I question their abilities. However, to have this procedure as a mechanism for electing a Member of Parliament is beyond ludicrous. It is, as I think I have demonstrated, laughable.

My short Bill has the simple objective of ending this by-election procedure once and for all. As the House will know, I am not the first person who has tried to address this problem. I pay particular tribute to Lord Avebury, who introduced a Bill in 2006 which tried to do precisely what I am trying to do today. It is deeply ironic that it was his sad death which led to the hereditary Peers by-election that I have just described. How have we arrived at a situation where we are obliged to hold by-elections to fill vacancies for hereditary Peers? The answer lies in the provisions of the House of Lords Act 1999. The Act was passed before the great majority of noble Lords in the House today—including me—had even become Members. It is therefore worth reminding ourselves of the details.

The Act’s principal objective could not have been clearer. Section 1 states that:

“No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage”.

However, Section 2 provides for certain exemptions to the general principle of removing all the hereditaries: 92 are exempt; two of them, the holders of the offices of Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain, continue as before. Of the remaining 90, 75 were to be elected on a party-political basis. The electors for this are the hereditary Peers who are members of the party in which the vacancy has arisen. So, in the by-election referred to earlier, caused by the death of a Liberal Democrat, there being precisely three Liberal Democrat hereditary Peers, the electorate was three. You know it makes sense.

It may be asked why on earth there were any exemptions at all to the clearly enunciated objective—which virtually everyone now accepts—in Section 1 of the Act, which abolishes the hereditary principle as a qualification for Members of the Lords. There are two main explanations. The first was simple, practical political arithmetic. In 1997 the Labour Government had a clear manifesto commitment to remove all hereditaries from the Lords. The Government had a huge overall majority—418 Labour MPs, 165 Conservatives—of 186. Those were the days. In the Lords, the position was very different. There were 1,210 Peers, just 193 of whom were Government supporters taking the Labour Whip. The Official Opposition, the Conservatives, had 484 members. What is more, 750 Peers were hereditaries who, not surprisingly, were not for the most part too struck on the Bill. From the Government’s point of view there was real anxiety that, unless some concession was made to the overwhelming opposition to the Bill in the Lords, there would be total disruption of the Government’s legislative programme.

The second reason for retaining some hereditaries was that their presence would somehow put pressure on the Government to fulfil their commitment to wholesale reform of the second Chamber. As soon as this reform was achieved, the remaining hereditaries would be removed. So the 1999 Act was to be a forerunner to a much more comprehensive reform and the remaining hereditaries, and any consequential by-elections, would be a temporary expedient. As my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine, the then Lord Chancellor—who I am pleased to see is in his seat—said at the time,

“the Government with their great popular majority and their manifesto pledge would not tolerate 10 per cent. of the hereditary peerage remaining for long”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]

That pledge was made 17 years ago. A clause in the 1999 Act, which should have long ago become redundant, has to all intents and purposes become part of our constitution.

When Lord Avebury introduced his Bill to abolish by-elections in 2006, he noted with some incredulity that there had already been eight by-elections. I can update the House: there have now been 28. These have resulted in 30 Peers arriving by this method—two of the by-elections returned two members. So one-third of the hereditary Peers in this House have arrived, over a 17-year period, by a mechanism that was described as a temporary expedient. At this rate, it will not be long before a hereditary Peer is elected who was not even born when the original temporary measure was introduced.

There is one further characteristic of the by-election system as it has evolved in practice that makes it completely unacceptable in a modern Parliament. Following the 1999 Act, among the hereditary Peers who remained, just five were women. Since then, four have been replaced, all of them by men, leaving just one female hereditary Peer. That is one out of a grand total of 92. You might say that this may change in subsequent by-elections: no, it will not. In order to stand in by-elections, hereditary Peers who are not Members of the House have to be listed on the Register of Hereditary Peers. I have checked the most recent copy. The current list has 199 names; just one of them is a woman. Therefore, for the foreseeable future the overwhelming likelihood is that any vacancies will be filled by men. The 1999 Act, in its application over 17 years, has to all intents and purposes resulted in 92 positions in the House of Lords being designated men only. This cannot go on; it is indefensible. Who is to blame for a temporary expedient becoming in practice a permanent arrangement? Those who want to retain the present by-election system have an answer: they blame the Government—all Governments, successive Governments over a 17-year period—for failing to enact a fully comprehensive reform of the Lords. Surely the answer to that has to be that successive Governments have tried; my word, they have tried.

The Labour Government over a period of 11 years made numerous attempts at reform, including a royal commission—the Wakeham commission—a Green Paper, three White Papers and, finally, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which would have removed the hereditaries but the clauses were lost in the run-up to the 2010 general election.

Under the coalition Government, we had a White Paper with a draft Bill in 2011. This was followed by a Joint Committee of the two Houses. Then we had the House of Lords Reform Bill, which received its Second Reading before being withdrawn in 2012 because, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, there was no cross-party consensus on reform. There still is not. So we have failed attempts by Labour, then failed attempts by the coalition and now we have a Conservative Government who have repeatedly made plain that there will be no comprehensive Lords reform Bill in this Parliament. It is clear, therefore, that unless some action is taken the hereditary by-elections will continue at least until 2020, by which time a temporary measure will have been in operation for almost a quarter of a century.

To those, therefore, who argue that the by-elections must continue until there is comprehensive Lords reform, the answer is simple: successive Governments have tried and failed, but what also has failed is the argument that the remaining hereditary Peers would somehow guarantee swift movement towards a fully reformed House. To those who say that commitments to the by-elections made in 1999 must continue today, the answer is surely that one of our fundamental constitutional principles is that no Parliament can bind its successor. We have had three Prime Ministers since the original Act and four general elections. In the Commons today, no fewer than 528 Members had not been elected at the time of the 1999 Act. In the Lords, out of 839 Members, 519 of us were not here in 1999. To claim that a grand total of 1,047 people covering both Houses of our Parliament should be inexorably bound by a decision made before they were even Members not only defies a constitutional principle, it defies common sense.

My Bill deals with the problem of the by-elections but does not affect in any way whatever the rights of any hereditary Peer in this House today. Under my Bill, they would continue to play the important part that they do in exactly the same way life Peers do. Indeed, in most respects, hereditary Peers in this House are completely indistinguishable from any other Peer, apart from the absurd anomaly of their being able to pass on their peerage to another of their number when they die or retire.

The by-election system is way past its sell-by date. My Bill would scrap it in two simple clauses. For this House to take the lead and pass it would enhance our reputation and improve our Parliament. Its passage would hurt no one and cost nothing. I commend it to the House.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

For the record only and not necessarily as an all-encompassing defence, does the noble Lord wish to consider that the Cross Benches have a rigorous selection process to replace one of their own, representing quality, availability and specialists in their subject?

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I think that was more of a mini-speech than an intervention. Of course, I have tremendous respect for the Cross Benches, but the basic principle must remain—namely, that for a group of hereditary Peers to replicate themselves ad infinitum in a by-election situation which I hope I have described as being completely unacceptable, is no longer defensible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, the answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, about who is to blame is this: Jack Weatherill, and I will explain why. Perhaps I may start by saying that I support my noble friend’s Bill and I congratulate him on it. It is a step in the right direction in terms of reforming your Lordships’ House. It provides for reform by small steps, which is the way I think that most Members and the Government would like to progress. We are committed to achieving most of what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, has just been talking about.

It is clear that the election of hereditary Peers has become ridiculous. My noble friend gave an example where seven candidates stood and three electors voted for the recent vacancy on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We can overcome most things, but we cannot overcome ridicule, especially as how appointments to this House are made is a major public concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, pointed out.

I served on the Government Front Bench when the 1999 Bill was being debated, so I am pretty ancient. I clearly remember that the election of 90 hereditary Peers was seen as a compromise. It was a temporary arrangement that was negotiated by Jack Weatherill—a former Speaker of the House of Commons—as a way of overcoming the huge number of hereditary Peers who at the time could block or delay any legislation in this House. That was the purpose of the negotiation.

[Viscount Waverley]

I apologise to the noble Lord. Will he take into account the difference between facilitating and negotiating? I think that Lord Weatherill facilitated the process to which he refers.

[Lord Haskel]

The noble Viscount is quite right: he did facilitate the process rather than negotiate it. I thank him for pointing that out.

Some 15 of the 90 hereditary Peers were appointed by virtue of being former or at the time current Deputy Speakers. The purpose and usefulness of the procedure has obviously served us well, but it has now expired. The Deputy Speakers have served their time and an elected House is a long way off. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is absolutely right to point out that the two additional hereditary Peers were agreed purely for ceremonial purposes.

I agree with other noble Lords that the Bill being put forward by my noble friend deals fairly with the current hereditaries. Of course many have made an important and distinguished contribution to the House. They are eligible to become life Peers and some have already done so. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. This Bill provides the House, hereditary Peers and the country with the certainty that he is looking for. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that it would be a useful and sensible step along the way to reducing our numbers, but that is a separate matter and is one for a separate Bill. But again, this is something about which many noble Lords are agreed. Most of us are committed to step-by-step reform, of which the Steel Bill was one example. This is another one, and I think that the Government should support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

But that element of trust on behalf of the British people is surely for all of us and not in any way restricted to hereditary Peers, although I accept that it is perhaps rather odd that the hereditary Peers provide the only element of election for membership of this House.

As my noble friend Lord Grocott very plausibly and convincingly said, the Bill will allow the current hereditary membership to wither on the vine by allowing current Peers to remain Members for the rest of their days or until they choose to retire. It ensures that their successors to be Members of the House of Lords must be subject to the same criteria and procedures as the rest of us. There is no particular wisdom that can pass from one hereditary Peer to his son—why should there be? They should be dealt with and regarded in the same way as all the rest of our population. Hence we are talking about the removal of a nostalgic vestige of the old regime, which was agreed for tactical reasons in 1999.

Secondly, there is of course a case for wider reform. This is supported by the recent remarks of the Lord Speaker. I say in passing that the current Lord Speaker has started well and I hope he will continue to make comments on matters of interest of this nature. He states that the number of Members of this House should be cut to below 600, no greater than the number of Members of Parliament. Presumably he would want it to be capped at that figure and not to be increased by successive Members of Parliament. I invite Members to look at the recent appointments in the resignation honours of Mr Cameron and see the way in which No. 10 has been honoured so massively, and contrast that with what Mr Blair did in refusing to have resignation honours, when there were a number of people in No. 10 who were eminently worthy of coming to this House. I think of Jonathan Powell, for example, who facilitated the agreement in Northern Ireland and made a great contribution to this country. But Mr Blair said, I think correctly, that it was not appropriate to have such a resignation honours list.

[Viscount Waverley]

I apologise to the noble Lord and to the House. The noble Lord might be giving the case for reversing the whole process of entry into this House. Perhaps the selection process ought to be under scrutiny and elected by Members of this House rather than by appointment—forget the whole system of appointment.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

That is an interesting point but perhaps an argument for another day. I revert to what I was saying about the numbers in this House, which are getting quite impossible. I note also the argument of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, who has argued persuasively for separating honours from the peerage, as many categories of worthy recipients of honours would not wish to participate in the work of this House. Of course, many procedures for reducing the numbers have been canvassed. Some argue for one for one—one out, one in—but that would not in itself reduce the numbers. The voluntary principle for retirement has had only a marginal effect, with 52 retirements since 2014. Perhaps that number might be increased, dare I say, with some form of financial inducement—a bronze handshake—but that is another argument. A retirement age has been mooted, with Members forced to retire at the end of the Parliament in which they reach the age of 80.

Clearly, more radical culling has to take place if the aspirations of our Lord Speaker are to be met. Ultimately I would like to see this House more representative of the United Kingdom as a whole, perhaps with regional assemblies putting forward their own lists, away from No. 10. But if the numbers are allowed to rise inexorably, when this House returns in 2028—or when we move, as is suggested, some time after 2020—the Queen Elizabeth II Centre will not be large enough to accommodate us. We shall have to look elsewhere, perhaps even to Wembley Stadium, to accommodate the numbers.

EU Referendum: Voter Registration

Viscount Waverley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I think we all wish to learn the lessons from what happened last night—I totally heed that point. However, the Government need to move with haste and ensure that what they do is legally watertight. That is entirely what we are aiming to do. After all, the Government are rightly called to account by your Lordships on whether we legislate in undue haste, and to ensure that we do things in a proper way. As for postal votes, that is an entirely separate system of registration, and nothing is changing there.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister send a signal to all UK posts abroad, as there are plenty of people who are already extremely concerned about the outcome of this situation, which we do not want to exacerbate as a result of their inability to be involved in this process?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

We have continued to ensure that those who live overseas are fully aware of their rights regarding the referendum and registering to vote.

Queen’s Speech

Viscount Waverley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, all forms of extremist behaviour are to be deplored. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who is not in his place, was absolutely right to draw attention to the challenges of defining extremism. However, when he went on to refer to the need to defend the freedom to speak fearlessly, I say to him with respect but concern that that should surely be only within the parameters established by law. I hesitate to say this out of sensitivity to the French, but I think that lessons need to be learnt from Paris.

I sense that Islam, together with Judaism, is a victim of unawareness in large parts of the United Kingdom, sometimes bordering on ignorance. This is unhelpful. The British people have a reputation for fair-mindedness, so I have little doubt that the right explanations of background and facts will assist greatly the passage of the counter extremism and safeguarding Bill. There is a clear role for clerics.

I was delighted that the Pope, after five years of disagreement, yesterday met the senior imam from the al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, who represents the highest authority in Sunni Islam. It should be remembered that extremism does not begin and end at national borders. It is a practical reality that politics and religion are part and parcel of national governance and politics on the international stage. Those policies inevitably affect us in this country and region. There is an undoubted role, therefore, for state actors to recognise their contribution by advocating and implementing moderate, inclusive policies. This would assist enormously in creating an environment of tolerance that would defuse religious tension and, by extension, extremism—and, equally importantly, perceptions.

Living in Portugal and travelling often to the neighbouring countries of Spain and Morocco, I am constantly reminded of a golden age of Iberia where in Spain and Portugal Islam was pre-eminent over many centuries, and remains so in Morocco. Learning about the history and perspectives of Sunni and Shia Islamic sects, for example, and the advance of Islam along the north African coast from Damascus, is always helpful and assists in marshalling one’s thinking as to why differences exist and how best to engage across Israel and the Arab and wider Islamic world.

I was grateful, therefore, to the Minister responsible for Islamic affairs in Rabat for agreeing to my request at short notice last week to visit the Mohammed VI Institute for the Training of Imams, Morchidins and Morchidats in order to meet the director-general and the vice-president of the al-Quaraouiyine University in Fes, one of the leading spiritual and educational centres in the Muslim world. The institute is a unifying school of jurisprudence formed by His Majesty the King to counter terrorism and offer spiritual guidance to imams and women. Among many matters we touched on, their explanations of differing interpretations of jihad and their thoughts on segregation were edifying, and particularly applicable when referring to returning jihadists, as “jihad” has differing connotations in the Islamic world. To the less radical, it is the cleansing of one’s soul.

Thirty-eight imams have already been sent from France to the institute, and I also met two anglophone imams from Nigeria. They vouched for the spiritual learnings of the institute. There are examples of signed agreements with Mali, Libya, Tunisia and many others, and, more latterly, with France, with the support of the union of French mosques in agreement with the French state. The Minister might wish to explore with British imams whether there is a role for the institute, as I sense that its teachings may well resonate with mainstream Islamic thinking in this country. This would help the Government in many of their aims.

This Government have the opportunity to show the world how religion, politics and civil society can have increased relevance in a modern world, but that tolerance and respect must prevail. Ordaining this in isolation is not the answer; the Government need to take great care not to be drawn into contentious turf wars.