House of Lords Reform
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I cannot match the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for ingenuity—very few of us can.
As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord True, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—if he would care to listen—I was struck by the thought that it might be quite difficult to persuade the public outside that, because of something said in this Chamber 25 years ago, the mandate of the Labour Party set out in its manifesto should be put to one side, and nothing more can be done to reform the House of Lords because some commitment was given by somebody 25 years ago in this House. I think that would sell with some difficulty in the Dog and Duck.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My concern is that the Bill has to pass. Obstructing it would be to obstruct the result of the general election. I am convinced that it will pass. It is a pity that we will lose so many of our friends, although I have a hunch that some of them will be miraculously reincarnated as life Peers on New Year’s Day—I certainly hope so.
I have three points to make. First, the Government are right to want to pause and draw breath after this first Bill. It seems sensible because the country needs a national debate.
The role of the Lords is not clearly understood. China and North Korea get by without a second Chamber but I think that most of us, and certainly most democracies, seem to think that there is an advantage in having an institution to keep a check on what a majoritarian Government can do in the primary assembly, to improve their legislation and to look out for regional concerns. I agree, but that case has to be made to the country because right now, it is not widely understood.
If we are honest, we also have to admit that we as a House could do our job better. These debates tend to be full of self-congratulation. Of course, it is a tremendous privilege to be here, and we do work hard—on primary legislation we do a much more thorough job than does the other place. But our scrutiny of secondary legislation is, like the other place’s, superficial and spasmodic, and we are too London-centric to cover the regional dimension optimally. To me, that points to wanting a House with more expertise relevant to legislation and drawn from a wider pool.
What does that mean for composition? Like the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I am wary of direct elections. I lived in the United States and saw how having two Chambers which see themselves as equally legitimate all too often results in deadlock. That would be a more serious problem in a parliamentary than a presidential system. It is also the case that politicisation tends to squeeze out expertise, and we need expertise.
Indirect elections could be an answer. As a Scottish unionist, I like the Bundesrat model, at least for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; how best to provide for English regional representation is not for a Scot to tackle. But seats are allocated in the Bundesrat on the basis of degressive proportionality, favouring the smaller and more distant states, and copying that would reinforce our role as the cement of the union. But our legislative performance would not necessarily be improved at all.
So, are we stuck with an all-appointed House, as in Canada? Not necessarily: hybridity could be a good thing. Certainly, if our main task is to write good law, it will be a pity for us if we lose the expertise and experience of those who have had to apply the bad laws we have written.
My last point is this: let us at least correct the most glaring anomaly in the appointments system, as highlighted by Mr Johnson’s insouciant exuberance about convention. Most countries have honours systems but very few conflate recognition of past service with qualification for future work on legislation. Some of us are unqualified, frankly, and the House is mocked for its excessive notional size. The answer is simple, surely: follow precedent. Most Peers already have no right to sit here. If there are to be more life Peers, let us have two categories: those simply honoured with a title; and those who are willing to do, and well-suited to doing, a legislative job—and found to be such by the appointments commission, with a wider remit. Category 2 could be drawn from all parts of the kingdom. Degressive proportionality applies. There could —indeed, there should—be a ceiling on their number with a retirement age or term limits, after which they would transfer to category 1, but let us not drain away the current expertise until we have found a way of ensuring that we tap into more, and do so more systematically.
So, here are my four points.
Noble Lords
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am concluding. First, we need an informed debate led by a government Green Paper. Secondly, the House should be more fit for purpose, perform better and better reflect national and regional disparities—that should be our aim. Thirdly, it is high time that we distinguish between recognising past service and conferring a future right to legislate. Fourthly, this issue should not be rushed; it is dangerous nonsense to suggest that, until it is settled, the Government cannot do what their manifesto promised.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, on the basis of how quickly we are currently getting through Members’ contributions, we are likely to sit until 11.30 pm. If that is what Members wish, so be it, but I note the advisory speaking time of five minutes.
Sudan
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I join those thanking the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for securing this debate and pay tribute to his long and sustained personal interest in Africa.
I feel that we ought, as a country, to acknowledge some responsibility for the ongoing disaster in Sudan. For half a century, we were the colonial power. I was taught at university by a former governor of the Blue Nile province. He was a splendid man, but clearly we had failed to embed the structures of a stable society, because the disasters that followed our departure have been wholly home-grown. They did not and do not result from invasion, non-domestic terrorism or economic warfare; they are home-grown. Therefore, they are, to some extent, our fault. We really should not look away, because history means that we now host the largest diaspora community of Sudanese outside Africa. We should not look away because we are the lead at the UN on how to stir the world to live up to its responsibilities under Resolution 2417: how to stop the killing and the starving and how to find the 60% of the 2024 humanitarian aid pledge that has still not been funded? Rapid deployment of the full £89 million we pledged would set a very good example.
We must not look away despite all the difficulties of getting the Security Council into action. I doubt whether the Russians are proving very helpful. In Sudan, they now seem to be supporting both sides. For a long time, they supported the RSF. They have now, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, done a deal with the SAF, securing a Red Sea military base at Port Sudan. Their interest is in chaos, distraction and disruption. Conversely, we need to demonstrate to the global South that we care as much about saving lives in Khartoum as in Kyiv.
I am grateful for the Minister’s account of what we are doing in New York, but I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, that the Security Council really must be more active. I have four suggestions for what could be done. The first is to secure a ceasefire. The August Geneva attempt by the Americans, Swiss and Swedes failed. Is it now our turn to try, perhaps with the French? Secondly, the arms embargo needs to be widened so that it covers all Sudan, and of course it must be properly enforced. Thirdly, I hope we are using our lead role in the Human Rights Council to get the fact-finding mission’s mandate renewed. Reported atrocities really need to be investigated. Fourthly, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, spoke about Chapter VII, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has proposed that there should be an international intervention force under UN or African Union auspices. Should we not at least be exploring that idea with our European and American friends? The Russians might resist, but why not put them on the spot?
Despite all that, I of course accept that by far the most urgent priority for British policy must be to seek to stop the Sudanese starving. We have heard the numbers—25 million, half the population, currently going hungry; 13 million children; 4 million under five; three-quarters of a million, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has just said, facing imminent starvation—so securing humanitarian access has to be the paramount task. Of course, operating in a war zone without a ceasefire has huge risks, but the world cannot wait. The work of trying to save these people cannot hang fire until a ceasefire is secured.
I am not sure that the scale of the disaster is fully understood in this country. The forced mass migration is now actually greater than what central and eastern Europe saw in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. What is going on is the largest child displacement anywhere in the world: 13 million people are fleeing their homes, chased out. Two million of them are seeking sanctuary abroad, three-quarters of a million in South Sudan, with nearly 3,000 joining them every day, 1,000 crossing into Chad every day and 1,000 managing to reach Libya every day. The problems for host countries make it a regional crisis, with regional assistance programmes needed. I am very glad that we announced in July that we would help Sudanese refugees in Libya, but £2 million is not a great deal.
To pick up on what the most reverend Primate said, I will consider how this should affect our immigration policies. I have three suggestions. There are currently 5,293 people from Sudan in the asylum backlog queue in this country; 2,129 of them arrived in small boats in the last year. Given that they are fleeing horrific ethnic cleansing, murder and starvation back home, it is not surprising that 99% of asylum cases—when eventually heard—result in the applicant’s claim being accepted and asylum being granted.
It is astonishing to me that the last Government wanted all small boat arrivals made inadmissible—automatically and in perpetuity—and wanted them all deported instantly. Apart from the illegality and immorality, that policy ignored the practical reality: because of the diaspora community here, the Sudanese who are granted asylum tend to settle in rather well once they are allowed to work. Given that, and the 99% acceptance rate, could we not fast-track the Sudanese in the queue?
Secondly, while 2,000 came in small boats, only 19 came in the official way via the official resettlement scheme we run with the help of UNHCR. Stopping death in the channel means providing safe and legal routes. Should we not tell UNHCR that we would take more? Back in 2019, the previous Government told it that we would take a global total—coming from anywhere and everywhere—of up to 5,000 a year. Last year we took 485 and, of them, only 19 were from Sudan. That does not quite match the scale of the crisis there, and I hope the new regime at the Home Office is having another look.
Thirdly and finally, perhaps the new regime could also look at the family reunion visa rules. About 600 family reunion visas are issued each year to the Sudanese. Given the size of the diaspora here and the horrors out there, one would expect rather higher numbers. Need the rules be applied quite so restrictively?
The big point, which all in this debate recognise, is that we in this country have responsibilities and must behave responsibly. We cannot say that Sudan is a far-off country of which we know nothing. We cannot wash our hands and look the other way; no one should, but this country certainly cannot.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. I can remember from a time when I was a county councillor that the emergency planning committee was quite a central committee of the council; we do not see so many of those around these days. Unless we address the issue of resilience and preparedness at every level of government, we will not be in the right position to deal with problems, as I said in my previous answer. Yes, work is ongoing across government on that issue now.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
One of the striking and shocking aspects of this brilliant report is the proof that requiring regulators to operate commercially, competing for business, risks their capture by business. Grenfell shows the piper playing the tune that business wanted and that cost lives. I hope the Government will take up the recommendation to have a single regulator for the construction industry, and I really hope that they will site that regulator and all its regulatory functions in the public sector.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
One of the starkest issues in here is about dishonesty, incompetence and responsibility, including not even checking the qualifications of those responsible for undertaking inspections. I do not know if the noble Lord’s response to the report was similar to mine but, as he can see if I hold it up, there are lots of pink and red marks where I have highlighted it. I went through it thinking at every stage, “How did this happen? How could this happen?” I am grateful to him for his comments, and we will report back to the House on those points.