Parliamentary Democracy and Standards in Public Life

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, we are discussing very serious issues, and therefore it is important that they are tackled in a meaningful way. One way would be to have some kind of constitutional convention, like the one that the Scots had, where we might debate these issues more sensibly and rationally.

I want to talk about parliamentary democracy and how we can steer our way out of some of the mess that we seem to be facing. When we say that we are a democracy, what do we mean? Minimally, we mean two things, which is why we desire democracy as a form of government: equal rights to all citizens and benefits to all citizens. It is a system of government where people decide things themselves and which promotes public interest and benefits to all.

Parliamentary democracy is one form of democracy. It is not the only one; there are many others. What distinguishes parliamentary democracy and makes the element of trust particularly relevant to parliamentary democracy is that power lies with the people, but it is not exercised directly by the people but through their elected representatives. It is a mediated democracy—a democracy in which power is mediated through Parliament. That means that to talk about parliamentary sovereignty would be a serious mistake. It would mean that Parliament replaces people and begins to take all kinds of decisions that should be taken by people. I suggest that what we want is a robust parliamentary democracy in which people are as well organised, alert and capable of controlling their destiny as Parliament itself.

My second point is that in a parliamentary democracy there is an expectation that Parliament will continue to monitor the system of governance and how the Executive exercise their powers. With parliamentary sovereignty, whoever controls Parliament is sovereign, so the party in power in the House of Commons becomes sovereign. That is exactly what we want to avoid. In my view, we should have a parliamentary democracy in which people control their own affairs through the mediation of Parliament and in which Parliament can control and monitor the system of governance—how Ministers behave, how public appointments are made, how government money is contracted out and so on. These have been the causes of recent troubles. It is very important that Parliament should be strengthened, but not at the cost of people themselves.

The Importance of the Relationship Between the United Kingdom and India

Lord Parekh Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parekh (Lab)]

My Lords, India and Britain’s representatives have worked out a road map to deepen the ties between the two countries by 2030. That framework gives us some idea of where the countries intend to go. Several lines of activity have opened up, such as research, education, capacity building and culture.

Two further things are particularly striking about the framework. First, under the young professionals scheme, 3,000 young Indians are to come to the UK every year for training. It is also interesting that the biennial ministerial meetings are expected to agree on priorities and set the agenda for research, science and technology. All this is fine. However, in my four minutes, I want to concentrate on what I would like to see in the framework but do not. I say this as someone who was invited by the Indian Government to be the vice-chancellor of one of India’s largest universities. I went there and headed the university for three years. Since then, I have gone there regularly and have been deeply involved in India’s education policy.

Looking at the results of my entry into the Indian educational world, and at what we achieved and what we could have achieved, there were some important lessons learned which I will list very quickly. It is important for overseas Indians not only to be at junior levels but to occupy senior positions in Indian universities. Talented people from the diaspora can head Indian universities. Joint research between various departments at Indian universities should also be encouraged. However, there is a tremendous emphasis all the time on science and research. Humanities and social sciences need just as much attention.

The exchange of staff is quite important. The Government of Wales have worked out a scheme which we can build on, where a certain number of Indian doctors come from India to work in our hospitals for a year or two. They gain experience, we benefit from their presence, and then they go back and India benefits from their experience too. Both sides benefit from this kind of exchange.

This is also important in the recent context of British universities, like other universities, being invited to open campuses in India. I like the idea, but I hesitate to endorse it wholeheartedly. For a variety of reasons that I cannot go into, I prefer joint campuses, rather than Yale, Harvard or Oxford setting up their own campus. When you set up your own campus, is there a commitment to provide it with your own staff? If you do not, you recruit locally, with the result that existing universities are funded by local people and get no benefit from the home-based staff of the great universities which initially volunteered. There are lots of difficulties which I saw in the United States when I was a professor at Harvard. The scheme can work, but it can also not work. It is very important that these provisions are made intelligently.

Finally, when two countries co-operate—both countries proud of their history—there is always a danger of disagreement. This should be welcome. They should be honest in their criticisms and in pointing out where one country has gone wrong, but at the same time each one should be able to appreciate the other’s difficulties and the constraints within which they function. Here I suggest that we in Britain have not been particularly civil or careful. When we talk about the Hindu-Muslim riots and all that, we tend to forget that these are a result of the partition of India, which left behind a very painful memory in the minds and hearts of all the people. That is something that we did as a colonial power; for decades when we ruled over the country, we determined the structure of relations between various communities, and we corrupted the relationship. While we ought to be aware of what we did, we should also be careful in how we criticise people.

My final point, following what the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, is that despite all of our differences with Mr Modi, I think that he is doing good work and representing India’s pride. Lots of Indians see their self-respect restored and, while we may continue to disagree with him, we should also continue to welcome him.