The Importance of the Relationship Between the United Kingdom and India

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervene in the debate moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, as a long-standing member of the Indo-British All-Party Parliamentary Group and a great admirer of the dynamism of India, which will shortly be the most populous country in the world. I believe that our relationship is strong enough to bear the sort of criticism that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, mentioned.

India is very much a part of our past—we think of the East India Company and the British Empire—and of our present, with 3.1% of UK residents, or 1.6 million people, now of Indian background. It plays a positive role across the spectrum of activity in the UK, in business, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, education, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Parekh, hospitality, sport—we think of cricket—and health. Where would our NHS be without our Indians? I just had an operation and I think the consultant and virtually all his team were of Indian origin. In politics, it is surely remarkable that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland should be meeting to discuss the future of the union of this country. It is some indication of the changes which have taken place.

Of course, India is very much part of our future if we proceed realistically and with mutual respect, although there is a certain backlash to the so-called Indo-Pacific tilt of our defence policy. Nowadays, particularly post the invasion of Ukraine, people are thinking that the emphasis should be even more on the European role that we should play.

I recall a conference at which I looked across at the Indian delegation, saw the remarkable diversity—from the Tamils from the south to those from Nagaland in the north—and wondered how any federal government could keep together people of such diversity. It is done by a system of checks and balances, by respect and, of course, by the mutual working together of the Indian population.

That is why I, like the noble Lord, Lord Swire, am saddened by the response of the Indian Government to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, against all international norms. India abstained on key UN resolutions, refused to condemn the Russian invasion—what Russia calls a special military operation—and took refuge in generalisations on the protection of civilians and calls for a ceasefire. India has benefited from the breaking of sanctions, certainly in oil imports.

The key current basis for a bilateral relationship is the 2030 road map, formed in 2021. That is welcome but must be systematically and realistically given substance. I have one last reflection; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, will shoot me down speedily on it. It is triggered by George Osborne’s remark:

“There is a whole string of British governments who think there is a special relationship with India. My experience is that the Indians do not have that view of Britain.”


That is certainly my impression from my relationship with the Commonwealth. In my judgment, India does not have that same attachment, certainly at the ground level. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether the Government agree with that and equally—again, to follow a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swire—what expectation the Government have for a speedy resolution of the FTA negotiations.

The road map, with all its problems, gives us the opportunity to broaden and deepen our relationship—[Interruption.]

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, order.

Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to follow the right reverend Prelate on that point. As I tried to say in my earlier answers, the position of those in need will be at the forefront of the Government’s consideration. We know that people across the United Kingdom are worried about the cost of living; that is why the Government have announced £37 billion of support for the cost of living this financial year. In addition, the energy price guarantee and energy bill relief scheme are supporting households and businesses. We are also supporting millions of the most vulnerable households with £1,200 of on-off support. So far as specific decisions on benefits are concerned, they will have to wait for my right honourable friend’s Statement.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Is not the word “replacement” in the Question a euphemism for being ignominiously and publicly sacked? Was it really fair, just and moral to sack someone who was simply carrying out a jointly agreed policy with the Prime Minister?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I explained the reasons for the appointment of my right honourable friend, and I believe that it was a good appointment.

Afghanistan

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, in three minutes I will give three reflections. First, on the lessons of history, the noble Lord, Lord King, reminded us of the unwinnable wars of the 1840s and 1880s in Afghanistan when, in spite of the pledges of safe conduct, our people were massacred in the Khyber Pass. This led to the saying, “You cannot buy an Afghan, only rent one”—which may also help to explain the rapid collapse of the ANA and the unheroic handing over of towns without a fight. But of course we also recall the Soviet intervention in the 1980s, which President Gorbachev called the “bleeding wound”.

What is the Government’s best analysis of the reasons for the rapid defeat? What are the geopolitical consequences of that defeat? President Biden, alas, will be diminished, certainly abroad. Do the Government see any danger of the US retreating into a new isolationism, abandoning the aspirations of nation building, spreading democracy and human rights, and a corresponding loss of trust in the US? Some will repeat the wisdom of the old saying “Do not enter the box unless your exit is clear”.

For the UK, one lesson in reality is in the limits of a post-Brexit independent foreign policy. In spite of our military expenditure and expertise, when the US leaves, we leave. Our adversaries will be emboldened; the jihadists worldwide will celebrate; and there is a loss of trust in our pledged word and our ability to stay the course. Other lessons include that if we allow the pendulum of intervention—after the high point of the Chicago speech and the duty to protect—to swing too far in the opposite direction, it will be to our disadvantage.

How do we respond to the reality of the Taliban? It depends, of course, ultimately on their conduct. Are they latter-day Bourbons or do we believe their PR people, which would be extremely naive? How united in fact are the Taliban and what is the best analysis we have of that? Yes, of course, bring out our citizens and those who depend on us—but we should be extremely generous, particularly in respect of women and girls. We have reduced our aid; who will lose out as a result of the doubling of that aid? Will our aid agencies, the NGOs, be allowed by the Taliban to operate freely?

We should build bridges where we can and where there is an overlap of interest, at least partially, with countries such as China and Russia. But we need to work particularly closely with Pakistan, which will assume a new importance in its regional role. In short, we should look long and learn the lessons of history, and we should remain very true to our own values.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

Last call for the noble Lord, Lord Flight.

Afghanistan

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

We have provided mentoring and support to dedicated units in the counter-narcotics police of Afghanistan. Since 2010, these units have seized 18 tonnes of heroin, 70 tonnes of opium, almost 1,700 weapons as well as $3 million and $100 million of assets. So, we have been working with the Afghan counter-narcotics police to tackle this trade and we will continue to do so.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab) [V]]

Would the noble Baroness agree that, given the rapid advances currently being made by the Taliban, there is little incentive for them to enter into peace talks, and so the turbulence is likely to persist for some time? Given that, what will be the effects on food aid to the needy? What advice are we giving to the aid agencies? What is the effect on the functioning of our embassy? Are we withdrawing personnel at the moment?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The UK embassy in Kabul will remain open after the end of the Resolute Support Mission. We take the protection of our staff extremely seriously and will keep security under constant review. In the immediate term, there will be a small number of troops, consistent with a diplomatic presence, that will remain to offer assurance to the international community in Kabul as we transfer to the end of the mission.

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

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 13th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness set out a certain veneration for our constitution broadening down from precedent to precedent. However, surely the great virtue of our constitution has been that those who have had power have known when to yield it. There has also been a readiness to change when change is needed and not to seek to oppose any reform in a reactionary way until it becomes a tradition.

I also have an interest to declare. I am a Welsh peasant and would wish for my eldest son—for whom, like any good father, I have much admiration—to come to this place, but he should not do so except on his own merit. The problem is that we have a lottery of sons and only sons coming here—in a time when women quite properly have a greater and greater voice—simply because of what happened to their fathers in the past. Some obviously come here themselves on merit; others because their ancestors completed deeds of daring before the monarch; and others because they paid the right sum of money to Maundy Gregory for Liberal Party funds. I cannot recall any Liberal opposition to that at the time. Clearly, there are great differences in backgrounds.

We have been through this course on many occasions, including the two Second Readings which my noble friend Lord Grocott has brought forward. I congratulate him on his persistence. We are probably in a position where everything that can be said has been said, but I have not yet said it, so here it goes.

My first point is one of procedure. We have a position where obviously the great majority of people in this House—certainly as measured by the votes we have had in the past—are in favour of this incremental and piecemeal reform. But it has not happened, because a relatively small minority put roadblocks in the way of the Bill. Given the filibusters and flooding of the Order Paper with innumerable amendments that we have had in past, the powers that be should look at our own procedures to see whether there is any way of stopping merited reforms going forward. As a lapsed lawyer, the only argument of any merit that I can see against this Bill is that there was a degree of compromise in the deal done 20 years ago, but surely we have moved on massively since then. The context is different; it is a context of modernisation and where, as some well argue, the best should not be the enemy of the good.

What is it that sets apart the sons of hereditary Peers as different from the sons of other Peers? Is it superior intellect? That may or may not be the case. Is it some background that myself and others do not have? Is it other forms of merit—some contribution to the benefit of this country as a whole? That may be, but then, like the rest of us, they can be appointed on their own merits, rather than as a result of any merits of their fathers. I very much accept that our own hereditaries play a disproportionate part; that point was made very well indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. In future, however, a place in this Chamber should not arise from the merits or otherwise of Peers’ fathers but because of their own merits; it should be by proper selection and not by the terms of a lottery.

Leaving the European Union

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

This is the mother of all shambles. The message is clear: the Government are limping towards an extension, contrary to all the promises that have been made—and, crabwise, the Government are surely moving towards a people’s vote.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but that is not the case. The Government are working towards a deal. We are working towards getting the changes to the backstop that the House of Commons desires and we will bring back a deal that we believe will command the support of the House.

Exiting the European Union

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We have a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration that has been agreed. There is one issue that has been raised—the perceived indefinite nature of the backstop—that is still causing concern. It is that issue that the Prime Minister will be discussing with other leaders over the next few days and it is that issue on which we will hope to provide further reassurances. So I think that is quite clear.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Leader received any assurances from our European colleagues that they are open to further compromises—and, if so, are we prepared to run the risk that opening one part of the deal will allow other countries to run their hobby-horses, be it on fisheries, Gibraltar and so forth?

Brexit: Negotiations

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord will be aware there has been agreement on that, and it will be in the withdrawal agreement.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, in the referendum, there was a clear majority for remain in Northern Ireland. Yet the DUP purports to speak on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. Must this not be very puzzling to our EU partners? Are the Government not in thrall to a minority in Northern Ireland? When will someone in this Chamber and in the House of Commons speak on behalf of the majority of Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord will be aware we had a referendum across the United Kingdom. The vote was clear and we are now working on the wishes of the people.

Grenfell Tower

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am very happy to reiterate that the Government will not use this tragic incident as a reason to carry out immigration checks on those involved and those providing vital information to identify victims. I also reassure the House that we will make sure that all victims, irrespective of their immigration status, will be able to access the services they need, including accommodation and healthcare.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I was a councillor in an adjoining ward of Golborne and I am a long-term resident in the area. The Government’s response at last appears to be closer to the scale of the tragedy. How can one justify a council which has given priority to keeping council tax down and which has placed so much emphasis on outsourcing what are in effect its responsibilities in management and housing generally? On visas, will the funeral visas be extended to family members who want to come to this country to help those who have been affected? Finally, did I hear the Leader correctly when she said that she agreed with my noble friend Lord Soley that the council leader should consider his position?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I said that I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Soley said. It is not for me to make those decisions, but we have all accepted that the response was not good enough, so I think everyone is looking at themselves to see what we can do better in the future. On the noble Lord’s questions about visas, my understanding is—I might need to write to confirm this—that a number of family members in cases where their loved ones and relatives have been involved have already been able to come over. I do not know the exact numbers, but we are already working hard to ensure that at this awful time family members can come over to be with their loved ones.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the much respected noble Lord, Lord Howell, as some 20 years ago I followed him in chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place.

We live in strange times. This is a very short Bill but with momentous consequences. Consensual habits built over 45 years are to be set aside. Brexiteers argued for restoring national and parliamentary sovereignty. Therefore, it is puzzling that the Government did not wish this debate to take place, and relied instead on the royal prerogative, like some 17th-century monarch. We had the amazing spectacle of the other place approving this Bill with a vast majority when the majority of Members of Parliament believe it not to be in our national interest.

I make three brief points. The first concerns the nature of the decision on 23 June. Much of the post-referendum analysis has focused on the regional differences between London and Scotland and so on. Perhaps of more interest to us and, indeed, to the Government, if they wish to govern for the country as a whole, is the age difference. Three-quarters of 18 to 24 year-olds voted to remain. The young, whose interests will be most affected, voted strongly to remain; the old, who by definition have a shorter-term interest, voted to leave. Forty-six was the changeover point.

Why was there this age differential? First, of course, there was alienation. However, one explanation is surely nostalgia—a yearning for yesteryear, a reluctance to come to terms with the United Kingdom of today, with its modernity and diversity. To adapt Trump again, it was about “making Britain great again”, and “again” was perhaps the operative word in looking back to some time in the past. Perhaps the nostalgia even includes memories of the Commonwealth as it was. Indeed, a group of Conservative Members apparently want a new entry channel at our ports and airports for the Commonwealth, but, oddly, seem to focus only on the old white dominions. They perhaps forget that Commonwealth Governments, perhaps unanimously, favoured remain, and past attempts to revive Commonwealth trade have not been particularly successful. Indeed, any new deals we reach with the Commonwealth could harm some of our key national interests, including agriculture, lamb, beef, and so on. Surely there is now a danger that the Government will desperately try, after Europe, to create alternative alliances; for example, by cosying up to the Trump Administration in the US—a point already made in relation to pollution by the special rapporteur in the UN Commission on Human Rights. There have already been some hints of shifts in foreign policy.

Secondly, on the referendum itself, we were told, “The people must be consulted, they have spoken, and their view should now be respected”. Technically, this must be right; although the referendum was only advisory, we have to acknowledge political reality and not act like Mr Tony Benn in 1975, who having worked hard for a referendum, continued to campaign against what was the Common Market, even after a 2:1 vote in favour, not the 52:48. How did the referendum come about? Let us not ignore the weakness of Mr Cameron. He obtained his selection as Conservative leader by vowing to leave the European People’s Party group, much against our interests; he promoted the Act to hold a referendum before any transfer of power to Brussels, as if it was some alien, hostile power; and, of course, it was hardly surprising, therefore, that he was not credible when he stood on his head and advised the country to follow his lead.

Thirdly, how do we now respond to the Bill? Do we fold our arms and say, “The people have spoken. Long live the people!”? I make three points. Clearly, we have to concede that the remainers were too gloomy on the effects of a negative vote, at least in the short term. However, the Brexiteers were guilty of patent lies: the additional sums to the National Health Service, the imminent entry of Turkey, and no mention of an exit fee. Yes, we should look with respect, as we have already, at the work of our scrutiny committees, which have been trail-blazers—particularly our EU sub-committees. There are now chances at least to soften the impact of leaving by passing amendments on, for example, EU citizens here, the Irish border, the environment and workers’ rights.

We have to ask: did the referendum give the Government a blank cheque? Are there no constraints on their ambitions on the single market, the customs union, borders and universities? Surely there should at least be a meaningful vote in Parliament at the end of the process, and as the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, said clearly, what is now proposed is no concession.

Finally, perhaps we should not rule out the possibility of a second referendum when the final package is clear. David Davis, the Minister, began the debate on 31 January by speaking of,

“a very simple question: do we trust the people or not?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/17; col. 818.]

On 23 June the people voted negatively, to leave. Do we still have that trust? Should they not now be trusted by the Government to give an answer to the positive question: do you approve of the package the Government have negotiated on your behalf?