House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Dundee Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, on their excellent speeches, I join your Lordships in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham.

Regarding directions and measures taken and adopted after this Bill, and hence caused by the Bill if it should become an Act, I will briefly focus on three aspects: first, the priority that this House should persist as an effective revising Chamber; if so, and secondly, certain pitfalls to be avoided and prescriptions to be encouraged; and thirdly, how Lords reform, if properly thought through and completed, can enhance regional and national democracy, both in the United Kingdom and, by example, elsewhere.

Irrespective of the political allegiance of the Government of the day, all your Lordships will be very proud of our cross-party usefulness in this House. As has been said, it is this which persuades Governments to think again. For greatly improving proposed legislation before it reaches the statute book, in any given year a large number of House of Lords-tabled amendments are always accepted by the Government and their parliamentary majority in another place. The evidence of that pattern has been constant, whether during the years of Thatcher, Major, Cameron and Johnson or during those of Blair, Brown and now Starmer.

There is also our convincing record as a think tank House of Parliament, through many debates and Motions over a wide range of subjects, all the time providing innovative thoughts and constructive suggestions. This is, in my experience, similar to the think tank achievements of the 46-states affiliation of the Council of Europe and its Parliament in Strasbourg. The United Kingdom remains a prominent member, and I am a recent chairman of the Council of Europe’s committee on education and culture.

In his 2012 paper, Lord Steel of Aikwood correctly argues against elections to this House—the disadvantages being conflict between two elected Houses, territorial Peers threatening the purpose of constituency MPs and the huge expense of further national elections and of full-time salaried Peers. Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House therefore consider that instead of providing remedies, elections to this House by universal suffrage would simply throw up more difficulties and anomalies?

On appointments to this House, as many have urged, there is a pressing need for a rather obvious and long-overdue shift, switching these to be made by a statutory appointments commission, replacing political patronage. Nevertheless, the Government and Opposition would, of course, continue to confer non-parliamentary peerages and other honours, which are distinct and separate from parliamentary appointments.

Yet the irony is that as soon as an appointments commission might adopt this new role, the Government, in spite of their manifesto commitments, would still be tempted to rest on their laurels, wrongly alleging that, thereby, enough Lords reform had then been carried out. However, that would not be the case. This is since, although an appointments commission would function wisely and honourably, beyond London and this part of England, it is perceived as an establishment organisation behind closed doors, insufficiently comprehending and being in touch with the rest of the country.

By contrast, the expedients proposed by Lord Steel are able to win the support and confidence of the United Kingdom’s different regions and localities, for his suggested formula, which even if its details may require some amending, is ingenious, highly relevant and workable. Voting would not be by universal suffrage. Instead, an electoral college would consist of parliamentarians from the House of Commons and the three devolved legislatures: the national assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. On the usual party-political basis, this college would then choose or elect the majority of the membership of the senate or reformed House of Lords.

Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree with Lord Steel that not only is this arrangement, as he puts it:

“Simple, inexpensive, and probably likely to produce a less London-centric Chamber than at present”


but, being consistent, as it is, with the necessary relationship between this House and another place, far more acceptable than others as a measure of prudent Lords reform, since, as he further comments:

“Such a fundamental democratically reformed Upper Chamber would maintain the existing revising role, be part-time and unpaid”.?


In addition, does she concur that, once up and running, this same formula would make significant further contributions on a much wider front; for example, improving the quality of political devolution within the United Kingdom, this arising from the new and regular structural links, as already indicated, between United Kingdom regional Parliaments and membership of a reformed House of Lords?

Then there is the opportunity for building up cross-party teamwork among regional and Westminster parliamentarians together to check and rein in over-powerful central UK Governments and Executives, these in turn reflecting, and to which my noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie referred, the slippery-slope tendency of our own version of parliamentary democracy, most aptly described by Quintin Hailsham, the father of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, as “ elective dictatorship”.

Thereby, in these respects, we would not least inspire any modern democracy to adopt much better practice, to the obvious advantage of this country in the first place yet also by example to that of international colleagues, many of whom, still regarding this House and another place as the mother of parliaments, are ever ready to be influenced and guided by our United Kingdom procedures and their appropriate adjustments.

A reformed version of this House must maintain an ecumenical balance as well, therefore within its membership ever including the leaders and representatives of different faiths, while keeping our traditional Bench of Bishops to add to the wisdom of debates and to lead the House in prayer.

As has already been emphasised, in 1999 we were promised full Lords reform. Since then, this process has dithered and prevaricated. If the present Government now claim to grasp the nettle, they have to act accordingly in a timely manner.

Over the next 12 months, and for appointments to this House, they should empower a statutory appointments commission to take over from political patronage. Yet if they stop there, they will have only tinkered at the edges, undermined expectations and tarnished their own reputation.

Therefore, before the next general election, the Government should have already embarked on the type of formula advocated by Lord Steel of Aikwood. If they do that, then both here and abroad they will have earned the respect of democratic legislatures, their regions and communities.

Sudan

Earl of Dundee Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for introducing this debate. As emphasised by many, a strengthened civilian coalition is now essential in Sudan. In my remarks today, I will connect together three points: how Sudan’s new and growing civilian consensus can and must become much more effective; assistance to that endeavour from international diplomacy; and, along with other countries, the continuing and future roles of us and the United States, acting within the United Nations.

As has already been mentioned, the co-ordination body of civilian democratic forces, known as Taqaddum, was established in October 2023 and is the largest affiliation of Sudanese civil society. It urges an immediate end to the war, greater efforts to deal with the humanitarian crisis and better ways to protect displaced people, enabling their return home through a monitoring mission. The affiliation also stands for unequivocal democracy, without discrimination on grounds of religion, identity or culture.

However, while this year its aims have inspired fresh hope and purpose, so far its process has not sufficiently spread and developed. To achieve that, the civilian coalition should now broaden its base. It must engage much more with the grass roots of the regions, reaching out to women, youth and the various political and religious groups.

Equally, to dispel propaganda attacks against it by the SAF and RSF fighting factions, Taqaddum and its leader, Abdalla Hamdok, to whom the Minister referred in his opening remarks, ought to become ever more vociferous in rejecting the war and espousing neutrality. In order to communicate this and the other parts of their message, they have to make regular use of the media.

Correspondingly, and as evidenced by recent proposals of the African Union and Egypt, international diplomacy now recognises the potential of Sudan’s civilian coalition to outmanoeuvre the fighting groups and to guide the country towards peace and stability.

Does the Minister agree, therefore, that increasing international encouragement should be given to Taqaddum for dialogue between it and Governments of nations, so that concerns about the civilian governance of Sudan can be aired and addressed?

Does he also concur that international diplomacy ought now to assist civilian access to media? This would have the benefit of putting pressure on those aiding and abetting the war to switch their allegiance to Sudan’s humanitarian plight instead, as well as the advantage of more clearly publicising the inclusive and democratic agenda of Sudan’s civilian coalition.

My noble friend Lord Bellingham recommended targeted sanctions against SAF and RSF. Is the Minister in favour of selecting sanctions that can be properly enforced—for example, those which regional operators will co-operate in enforcing—in order to build up and sustain the credibility of all efforts, whether these be external or internal, to stop the war?

Working alongside other countries within the UN, as the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Kerr, have intimated, there are key opportunities and ways for our own country and the United States to become more proactive in promoting justice, democracy and human rights as Sudan’s civilian movement gains momentum. This could include the desirable expediences already advocated by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Since resuming diplomatic relations with Sudan in 2019, and in spite of some failed peace attempts, certainly the United States will remain a central player, as will the United Kingdom—not least taking into account our reputation and contribution to Sudan’s successful years when, during the first part of the 20th century, that country was a joint protectorate of Egypt and the United Kingdom.

Sudan’s future stability depends upon whether its present civilian coalition can notably strengthen and consolidate. All our countries must now make sure that this happens.