House of Lords Reform
Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.