Levelling Up?

This is Hansard’s record of my speech in yesterday’s Committee stage debate in the House of Lords as we began line-by-line scrutiny of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. All amendments, having been debated and responded to by the relevant Minister, are by convention then withdrawn so that the government can take back the content of the debate and decide whether the text of the Bill might be amended before bringing a (hopefully) revised text at Report Stage.

My Lords, at Second Reading, I remember applauding, broadly speaking, the ambitions of the White Paper. However, I share the concerns of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who of course brings to this much more experience than I do.

I am pleased that, already, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has alluded to the interconnectivity of all these different missions; they cannot be seen in silos or in isolation. For example, if you have children who are turning up at school unfed or living in poor housing, you can try teaching them what you will but it may not be very successful, and that has an impact not only on individuals but on communities and their flourishing.

I will speak to Amendment 15, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and briefly to Amendments 7, 30 and 31.

Health disparities require discrete attention in the Bill. It is not an optional extra. The Bill as it stands states the missions but does not provide mechanisms for action or accountability. How will we be able to measure whether they are effective or not? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has said that, although assurances by the Minister are very welcome, they are not enough; they have to be backed up in the Bill with measurable implementation gauges.

Good health is key both to human—that is, individual—and social flourishing. As I said, we cannot separate out such things as housing, education, health, transport and so on as if we can solve one without having an impact on the other. However, there are inequalities between the regions in many of these areas. I speak from a context in the north: the whole of west Yorkshire, most of north Yorkshire—but do not tell the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of York that—a chunk of Lancashire, one slice of County Durham and a bit of south Yorkshire. The inequalities are serious. The economic squeeze, in the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, is an incubator for inequalities, and we know the impact that inequality has across the board.

The White Paper rightly recognises the centrality of health to levelling up, but the actions by which this will be achieved could be argued to be lacking—and we certainly need long-term solutions and not quick fixes or slogans that sound good but do not lead to content. Can the Minister therefore offer assurances of the Government’s commitment to health within the levelling-up agenda in ways that can be measured and accountability upheld?

I support Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. The Government must give formal consideration to the inclusion of social prescribing. Why? Because social prescribing recognises the social determinants of health and the importance of community in improving health at every level. There are good examples already of where this is being explored, such as the National Academy for Social Prescribing, and I endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, at Second Reading in this regard. There are examples of services run by faith and community groups in London and beyond, and the pilot by the DHSC in Wolverhampton is promising. The key to all of this is the relational dynamic in the well-being of both individuals and communities. This leads me to ask how social prescribing might be used to tackle inequalities in health and well-being. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that.

I turn briefly to Amendments 7 and 31. The text of the missions might be important but we need evaluative measures in the Bill so that they can be measured. Otherwise, they are merely aspirational and all we can do is trust the word, however well-meaning, that is applied to it. Moreover, how can the Government be held to account on delivery? Commitment to the missions can be measured only by some process of assessment on implementation, and this needs to be in the Bill.

I conclude with the obvious statement that healthy life expectancy is surely a key measurement of our effectiveness in tackling health inequalities.

 

Corruption in the UK

This is the basic text of a speech in Grand Committee (in the Moses Room) of the House of Lords this afternoon. I was the fourth speaker and there was a seven-minute speech limit.

My Lords, I am grateful to Baroness Jones of Moulscoomb for securing this debate, urgent as it is, and – unnervingly but possibly appropriately – overseen by Moses himself.

I was pleased to see that both the UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2017-2022 and the Library note for this debate begin with definitions or corruption. Broadly speaking, they define corruption in terms of the abuse of office or illicit procurement of personal gain – the misuse of entrusted power, as Lord Evans put it. That is reasonable enough; but, I want to offer another definition: Corruption happens when integrity is reduced to expediency and principle to mere pragmatism.

Of the many possible examples we could draw to mind, we might just fix on the years of complacent steering of Russian money through the sewers of London. Despite many warnings about both the nature and impact of this, it was financially convenient and politically cost-free. Then, once Vladimir Putin went off-piste in Ukraine, suddenly the language changed to that of moral outrage. Same money, same people, same oligarchs, same ‘brutal dictator’, same banks. The only thing that had changed was temperature and political expediency. Principles of integrity, transparency – the virtues extolled by Nolan – were frequently mentioned and comprehensively ignored when convenient money was involved.

In the wake of the Brexit referendum in 2016 and the tortuous years of subsequent legislation the House heard many challenges to the abuse of language, the ‘normalisation of lying’, the ‘corruption of the public discourse’. Virtue received a nod while those in the highest power in our land sought to ignore both the claims and consequences of corruption. Because corruption is not primarily about systems; rather, it is about character. Individual and corporate. And what do we see in today’s papers? Reports in the Times of a letter from the chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission to the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition asking them to avoid promoting candidates who are “unsuitable”. I don’t need to name examples who, by virtue of their nomination, bring our polity into disrepute.

Money. Power. Influence.

Now, I am not naive and I don’t speak from some pedestal. Lord Acton’s famous dictum – that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” – was, after all, addressed to an Anglican bishop (Creighton) and related to the writing of history about the Inquisition. In fact, his point was pertinent to this debate today – he wrote: “I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong.” Which is why it matters when those with power throw integrity and virtue to the winds while enriching or protecting themselves. This is utterly corrosive of public ethics and the common good.

Earlier I referred to what I call the corruption of the public discourse. Corruption begins with language. The German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk writes that the nature of our public discourse matters because “moral and political aberrations almost always start with linguistic neglect.” Edmund Burke understood the powerful influence of abstract terms such as ‘liberty’ or ‘equality’ which have the power to move people without enlightening them. Yet, politicians who revere Burke also seem to see fit to defend draft parliamentary legislation that proposes to breach international agreements (and, therefore, the rule of law), give unlimited power to ministers to fill in the detail of skeleton bills, see accountability as a nuisance, and ignore conventions such as correcting on the record things that have – to put it generously – been misspoken in our parliamentary houses.

These things matter. Behaviour and language are not neutral. Never. And the insidious truth is that corruption ignored, downplayed or spun opens the door to corruption elsewhere in both individual and corporate life. So, why no ministerial ethics adviser? Why no anti-corruption tsar? Why still no real pinning down at a systemic level of cronyism, dodgy lobbying, unaccountable political donations that lead to personal reward? Why a laughing dismissal of hedge fund professionals who game a mini-budget and make millions out of the economic and social misery caused to the rest of the population? (No champagne parties for the losers.) Why do we tolerate a legal system that is being run down – as if justice does not require adequate funding and resourcing? Why a Ministerial Code that reduced moral accountability on the part of ministers? What just recompense for the public whose money was used to pay billions in contracts to government cronies during the covid pandemic? I won’t mention the honours system.

All this is in plain sight. If we choose to ignore what is evident, we incur ethical judgment on our neglect. This is not incidental. If democracy and the rule of law are to mean anything, if integrity in public life is something to be honoured and not mocked, if public virtue is not to be shrunk into political or economic pragmatism or expediency, then this parliament must clean up its own act, pay attention to its use of language, show an example of transparent accountability in its vital work, and demonstrate the power of humility in setting a public culture.

Positive proposals for the minister? Set up an Anti-Corruption Board with teeth and independence. Appoint an Ethics Committee in Downing Street or the Cabinet Office with the power to hold the powerful to account.

 

Rule of Law (again)

I noticed I hadn’t published the text of my speech on 26 October at Second Reading of the internal Market Bill, so here goes. The speech at Committee (published earlier today) makes more sense if read after this one.

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and look forward to her future contributions to this House. I fully endorse the arguments set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I concur with the concerns set out in the report cited by other noble Lords earlier. I even welcome the commitments articulated by the Minister, but I question how they can be trusted, given the underlying ethic of the Bill—and it is absolutely right for archbishops to ask questions of such matters.

Relations with potential partners usually depend on integrity. Trade, security, migration and so on all rest on fundamental trust. Trust cannot be one-sided, or it is not trust at all. Respecting one’s interlocutors is essential. This is inevitably evidenced in language. The Bill before us assumes that our interlocutors cannot be trusted and will behave in bad faith, and that we need to be protected from them. If they do not give us what we demand, we are free to do our own thing, including breaking the law and reneging on agreements made less than a year ago that were said at the time to be “oven ready”—a good arrangement that required “no more negotiations”. What the Bill does not ask is why our word should be trusted by others.

Integrity and morality matter at the level of international relations and agreements—unless, of course, we are now agreeing to reduce all our relations and transactions to some sort of utilitarian pragmatism. Morality also applies to how we remember history and establish what will shape the national mythologies that future generations will inherit. What story will be celebrated or commemorated next year, the centenary of partition on the island of Ireland: one that chose to end violence and respect difference, including different perspectives on identity, justice and unity, or one of a conscious abrogation of agreements built from bloodshed and courageous willingness to stem the wounds of grievance? Ireland, both the Province and the Republic, needs some certainty and shape in the future narrative, but what sort of certainty is built on a broken word, the negation of trust or the arrogance of exceptionalism?

Irish church leaders are surely right to be concerned about what the Bill implies for relations between the devolved institutions and with the UK Government. These leaders are not talking into fresh air; they straddle the border in Ireland and their deep concerns about a breach of the Good Friday agreement need to be listened to, not simply dismissed with a wave of boosterish optimism from Westminster.

Others will speak about the implications of closing an illegal route to challenge the Government’s implementation of the protocol, but let us be clear: parliamentary sovereignty does not translate easily into executive sovereignty. A decision to prefer short-term pragmatism over long-term ethics will lead to a future ​in which a question mark will hang over any statement by those whose word and adherence to the rule of law cannot be trusted. More is at stake here than economics.

 

The Rule of Law

This is the text of a speech I made in the Internal Market Bill (Committee stage) debate in the House of Lords last night. Hansard made sense of some of my mumblings, for which I am grateful. The government lost heavily in votes to remove clauses that allow ministers too much executive power, threaten the Northern Ireland Protocol and permit ministers to break international agreements. At Second Reading I had left the politics to others, but focussed on the moral/ethical question involved; this was dismissed by the minister as “We will not listen to strictures on morality” – which suggests that there is no place in politics for ethics.

The government has said it will simply re-instate the clauses before bringing it back for Report in the House of Lords. It is a mystery why they have chosen such an unnecessary hill on which to die – one which undermines the UK’s reputation vis-a-vis the rule of law and reduces the possibility of trade agreements (with the US, for example) which demand good faith.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I endorse completely the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, at the outset of this debate. I hope the Government will listen carefully to the advice from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on the alternatives to what is before us. This is not an either/or situation.​

I have read every word of the Second Reading and Committee debates and the reports—especially from the Constitution Committee. I have even reread Tom Bingham’s book on the rule of law. I ask myself whether I am missing something, but I still come back to the point of principle. I accept the Government’s intention in this Bill, but not the means. We were given pragmatic answers to questions of principle, particularly in the responses to the Second Reading debate. These will not work. At Second Reading, the Minister dismissed the ethical argument which I tried to set out succinctly in my speech. Yet even in today’s debate, we have heard moral language used. To speak of suspected bad faith by others is to speak of ethics. Ethics must form the basis of political principle. Objections to other countries breaching international law have to be set in moral considerations.

 In the last couple of decades, during the Mugabe years, I have had a lot to do with Zimbabwe and latterly with Sudan, including meeting former President Omar al-Bashir. How can we say to people like them that the rule of law is paramount and that one’s word has to be taken in good faith?

This is an ethical and a constitutional issue. How can the Government ask Her Majesty the Queen effectively to give Royal Assent to the acceptability of breaking laws to which we have agreed? Mischievously, I suggest that we might refer to it as King John’s revenge.

There are other parts of this Bill with which I am not happy—what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to as Executive sovereignty trumping parliamentary sovereignty; the impact on the devolved authorities, and the concerns raised about the Northern Ireland protocol. Fundamentally, I keep coming back to the issue of ethical principle.

I will vote against the various clauses in Part 5 not standing part of the Bill. I hope that the Government will listen and look at alternatives which can carry the support of the Committee.

 

Internal Market Bill

This is the script of my speech in the House of Lords today in the Second Reading debate on the Internal Market Bill. I was the 21st speaker out of 115. Others addressed detail – I chose to address ethics. A four-minute speech limit was in force. There were some powerful speeches on both sides of the argument; most were impassioned and courteous.

My Lords, I fully endorse the arguments set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I concur with the concerns set out in reports cited by other noble Lords earlier. I welcome the commitments articulated by the Minister, but question how they can be trusted, given the underlying ethic of this bill. (And it is absolutely right that Archbishops ask such questions.)

Relations with potential partners usually depend on integrity. Trade, security, migration, and so on, all rest on the matter of fundamental trust. Trust cannot be one-sided or it is not trust at all. Respecting one’s interlocutors is essential, and this is inevitably evidenced in language. The Bill before us assumes that our interlocutors cannot be trusted, will behave in bad faith, and that we need to be protected from them. If they don’t give us what we demand, we are free to do our own thing … including breaking the law and reneging on agreements we made less than a year ago which were said to be “oven-ready”and “a good arrangement” that required “no more negotiations”. What it doesn’t ask is why our word should be trusted by others?

My Lords, integrity and morality matter at the level of international relations and agreements. Unless, of course, we are now agreeing to reduce all our relations and transactions to some sort of utilitarian pragmatism?

Morality also applies to how we both remember history and establish what will shape the national mythologies that future generations will inherit. My Lords, what story will be either celebrated or commemorated next year – the centenary of Partition on the island of Ireland? One that chose to end violence and respect difference – including different perspectives on identity, justice and unity? Or one of a conscious abrogation of agreements that were built from bloodshed and a courageous willingness to stem the wounds of grievance? Ireland – both the Province and the Republic – need some certainty in shaping a future narrative; but, what sort of certainty is built on a broken word, the negation of trust or the arrogance of exceptionalism?

Irish Church leaders are surely right to be concerned about what this Bill implies for relations between the devolved institutions themselves and with the UK government. These leaders straddle the border in Ireland and their deep concerns about a breach of the Good Friday Agreement need to be listened to and not simply dismissed with a wave of boosterish optimism from Westminster.

Others will speak about the implications of closing any legal route to challenge the government’s implementation of the Protocol. But, let’s be clear: parliamentary sovereignty does not translate easily into executive sovereignty.

A decision to prefer short-term pragmatism over longer-term ethics will lead to a future in which a question mark will hang over any statement by those whose word and adherence to the rule of law cannot be trusted. More is at stake here than economics.

 

England verstehen?

This is the basic text of a speech given yesterday evening in the Landtag of Niedersachsen in Hannover at a Parliamentary Evening put on by a federation of churches.

Herzliche Grüße aus Brexitannia! Es ist wirklich für mich ein Privileg, noch einmal hier in Hannover zu sein.

Vielen Dank für die Einladung, heute hier in Deutschland England zu erklären. Wir brauchen nur zwei Minuten, denn alles ist einfach und klar. Verstehen Sie, die politische Situation in Großbritannien ändert sich zweimal im Tag, jeden Tag. Aber im ganzen Durcheinander über Brexit bleibt nur eine Tatsache wichtig: FC Liverpool steht an der Spitze des Premier League. Alles ist in Ordnung!

Wie erklärt man England? Oder was in Großbritannien heutzutage passiert? Manche Engländer erkennen ihr Land einfach nicht mehr an. Innerhalb dreieinhalb Jahren ist die politische Kultur schiefgegangen und viele Briten fühlen sich erschrocken – sie verstehen nicht mehr, wer wir tatsächlich sind. Die Chinesen haben ein berühmtes Sprichwort: „Mögest du in interessanten Zeiten leben.“ Aber dieses Sprichwort ist kein Segen, sondern ein Fluch. Wären nicht langweilige Zeiten mal schön?

Ich bin sowohl Bischof als auch Politiker.  Manche Menschen in Großbritannien finden dies ein schwieriges Konzept – sie verstehen das überhaupt nicht. Christen sollten sich auf das Reich des Geistigen beschränken und sich aus der Politik heraushalten, sagen sie.  In der Politik geht es jedoch um das menschliche Leben, die richtige Ordnung der Gesellschaft und das Gemeinwohl.  Ein Christ kann es nicht vermeiden, sich in die Politik einzumischen.  Aber ich bin ein Politiker bestimmt deswegen, weil ich im Oberhaus des Parlaments sitze.  Das Unterhaus wird gewählt;  Das House of Lords wird ernannt, und 26 Bischöfe der Church of England – Diözesanbischöfe – sitzen (aufgrund ihres Dienstalters) im Haus.  Die Bischöfe sind aufgrund des Pfarrsystems mit jeder Gemeinde in England verbunden.  Wir wissen also, was auf dem Boden im ganzen Land vor sich geht.  Im House of Lords vertreten die Bischöfe keine Partei, kein Block, man kann sie nicht peitschen oder ihnen sagen, wie sie wählen sollen. Jede Bischöfin und jeder Bischof muß entscheiden, was sie oder er in einer Debatte sagen sollte und wie sie oder er abstimmen sollte.  Ich „führe“ für die Bischöfe in Sachen Europa und damit den Brexit an.  (Ich führe auch in Sachen Russland, Sicherheit und Geheimdienste wegen meiner vorherigen Karriere in den Geheimdiensten an.)

Ich kann nicht heute Abend alles sagen, was gesagt werden sollte. Zum Beispiel, welche Rolle spielen die Bischöfe und Bischöfinnen im House of Lords und im öffentlichen Gespräch über politische Entwicklungen in Großbritannien? Wir sind nicht parteipolitische Spieler. Deswegen haben wir eine Verantwortung, die Wahrheit auszusprechen, eine klare Licht auf politische Aktivitäten und Kultur zu werfen, und durch eine Evangeliumslinse hinauszuschauen.

Der beste Weg, um zu verstehen, was heute in Großbritannien passiert, ist folgender: Die britische Demokratie wird in einem System parlamentarischer Demokratie ausgeübt.  Dieses System hat keinen Platz für ein Referendum oder Volksabstimmung (direkte Demokratie).  Es ist problematisch, dass Politiker aller Parteien vor dem Referendum in Juni 2016versprachen, dass das Ergebnis gewürdigt und der „Wille des Volkes“ befolgt werde.  Erst als das Ergebnis den „falschen Weg“ einschlug, wurde den Menschen klar, dass (a) in einem parlamentarischen System ein Referendum nur beratend sein kann und (b) die Antwort auf die Frage keinen Hinweis darauf gibt, was „Verlassen der EU“ in der Praxis bedeuten könnte.  Das Parlament hat die Verantwortung, nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen Gesetze im besten Interesse des Landes zu erlassen – aber was passiert, wenn dies der im Referendum getroffenen Wahl widerspricht?  Deshalb sind wir in einem Durcheinander.  “Die Kontrolle zurückerobern” ist ein einfacher Slogan.  “Parlamentarische Souveränität” hört sich wichtig an … am wenigsten bis das Parlament seine Souveränität bestätigt und dann beschuldigt wird, den Willen des Volkes vereitelt zu haben.

Jetzt können Sie vielleicht besser verstehen, warum es so ein Durcheinander ist.  Und die Brexiter verwenden jetzt die Sprache “Parlament gegen das Volk” und “Richter gegen das Volk”. Es scheint, dass ‚das Volk‘ nur die Brexiter beschreibt. Das britische Volk ist gespaltet. Das Parlament spiegelt dieses gespaltene Land wider.

Jetzt aber ist mir klar, dass der Brexit außerhalb der Insel anders aussieht, und viele Beobachter schockiert sind über das, was der britischen politischen Kultur in den letzten drei Jahren widerfahren ist.  Lassen Sie mich kurz einige Punkte ansprechen.

Erstens ist es wichtig zu erkennen, dass der Brexit im Wesentlichen ein englisches und kein britisches Problem ist.  Ein berühmter englischer Journalist schrieb vor zwanzig Jahren ein Buch mit dem Titel “The English”.  Jeremy Paxman erklärt an einer Stelle, dass ein wesentliches Element der irischen oder schottischen oder walisischen Identität besteht darin, dass ich “nicht englisch” bin.  Aber es ist sinnlos, wenn ein Engländer sagt: “Ich bin kein Schotte, usw.” Die Schotten haben ein Parlament, die Waliser eine Versammlung, die Iren auch eine Versammlung;  und die Engländer?  Nur Westminster.  Die letzten drei Jahre haben den Walisern, Schotten und Iren gezeigt, dass die Engländer sich nicht um sie kümmern.  Umfragen zeigen, dass Brexiteer bereit sind, das Ende der Union als geringen Preis für den Brexit zu sehen.  Es ist durchaus möglich, dass der Brexit zu einem vereinigten Irland und einem unabhängigen Schottland führen wird.  Wir erinnern uns daran, dass im Jahre 2014 David Cameron die Schotten überzeugte, gegen die Unabhängigkeit zu stimmen, mit der Begründung, sie müssten die EU verlassen …

Zweitens war der Brexit immer ein Versuch der Konservativen Partei, ein internes Problem zu lösen.  Die EU-Frage hat die Partei jahrzehntelang geteilt, und keine der beiden Hauptparteien hat sich jemals für die EU eingesetzt.  Es gibt auch ein Argument dafür, dass die Natur der EU als eine sich entwickelnde politische Union in Großbritannien niemals ehrlich anerkannt wurde – was zu wachsendem Ressentiment und nachlassendem Vertrauen unter Politiker und Institutionen geführt hat.  Aber es bleibt wahr, dass viele Menschen in Großbritannien glauben, dass der Brexit eine Tory-Lösung für ein Tory-Problem ist, um den Tories zu ermöglichen, an der Macht festzuhalten.  David Cameron glaubte nicht, dass er das Referendum im Jahr 2016 verlieren würde – weshalb er dem öffentlichen Dienst keine Vorbereitungen für eine Leave-abstimmung erlaubte.

Drittens hat der Brexit tiefe Spaltungen in der britischen Gesellschaft aufgedeckt. Brexit hat sie aber nicht erschaffen.  Der neoliberale Globalisierungstraum ließ viele Gebiete des Landes und viele Gemeinschaften mit dem Gefühl, dass sie übersehen, vergessen oder ignoriert seien.  Ja, die ärmsten Gebiete des Vereinigten Königreichs haben für den Austritt aus der EU gestimmt, obwohl sie über vier Jahrzehnte hinweg in hohem Maße von EU-Subventionen und Projektfinanzierungen profitiert haben.  Warum?  Einige sagen, dass das Leben für sie einfach nicht schlimmer werden kann. Warum also nicht die Gelegenheit nehmen, gegen die Politiker zu treten?  Dies wurde von denjenigen ausgenutzt, die sich als “gegen die Eliten und gegen das Establishment” positionieren – obwohl die meisten von ihnen wohlhabend, privilegiert und von keinem durch den Brexit verursachten Schaden betroffen werden.  Kurz gesagt, das Problem besteht darin, dass die EU nicht für die Dinge verantwortlich ist, gegen die gestimmt wurde. Deshalb wird die Operation des Brexit die Krankheit nicht heilen oder ihr Leben verbessern.  Aber Brexit hat wenig mit Realität oder Fakten zu tun; Brexit geht um etwas vitzerales. Also, was machen wir dann?

Viertens hat der Brexit nicht nur das Vertrauen in unsere Institutionen und Politiker geschädigt, sondern auch die Rechtsstaatlichkeit wurde von einer Regierung bedroht, die für schuldig im Supreme Court befunden wurde, gegen das Gesetz verstoßen zu haben.  In der Vergangenheit hätte dies zu einem Rücktritt geführt.  Heute aber gibt es keine Schande mehr;  und Lügen, Manipulation und falsche Darstellung sind die akzeptablen Merkmale eines politischen Spiels geworden.  Unser öffentlicher Diskurs wurde korrumpiert.  Schlimmer noch, unsere Abgeordneten werden täglich mit Gewalt und Tod bedroht – genau wie ihre Familienmitglieder.  Ich erinnere mich gut an den Mord an Jo Cox eine Woche vor dem Referendum im Jahre 2016 – ich war innerhalb einer Stunde dabei;  es geschah in meiner Diözese und nur acht Meilen von meinem Wohnort entfernt. Ich kenne ihre Familie.

Also, die Zukunft?

Erstens: Wir werden wahrscheinlich die Europäische Union verlassen, aber wir werden Europa nicht verlassen.  Unsere starken Verbindungen in ganz Europa werden in den kommenden Jahren noch wichtiger.  Großbritannien musste sich seit dem zweiten Weltkrieg nie damit abfinden, bloß eine kleine Nordatlantikinsel ohne Imperium zu sein.  Der Brexit wird, denke ich, das Ende des Mythos vom britischen Imperium bedeuten.  Britische Zeitungen und Politiker erinnern sich immer wieder daran, wie wir den Krieg (alleine) gewonnen haben.  Endlich müssen wir jetzt mit der Realität leben und nicht mit romantisierten Erinnerungen des letzten Jahrhunderts.  Nach 1945 mussten sich die Deutschen mit ihrer Geschichte, Identität und ihren Fehlern auseinandersetzen.  Die Briten mussten das noch nie tun.  Wir werden es jetzt tun müssen. Ich stimme mit der Philosophin Susan Neiman überein, als sie sagt in ihrem neuen Buch Learning from the Germans: „Nostalgische Sehnsüchte nach Imperium und Sentimentalismus im Zusammenhang mit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg weisen nicht nur auf außergewöhnliche Mängel des öffentlichen Gedächtnisses in Großbritannien hin, sondern auch auf die Unfähigkeit, mit der Geschichte reif zu rechnen. Neil MacGregor hat gesagt: „Die Deutschen nutzen ihre Geschichte, um über die Zukunft nachzudenken, während die Briten ihre Geschichte nutzen, um sich zu trösten“.

Zweitens: Die Europäer müssen anerkennen, dass fast die Hälfte der Wähler für einen Verbleib in der EU gestimmt hat – und auch dass die Verbundenheit mit der EU seit dem Referendum gewachsen ist.  Deutschland und Europa haben viele Freunde in Großbritannien und wir brauchen Ihre Freundschaft, um eine andere Zukunft zu gestalten.

Drittens: Ich denke (aber ich könnte mich irren), dass die Union nicht lange überleben wird.  Alles deutet darauf hin, dass Schottland jetzt für die Unabhängigkeit stimmen würde;  Irland könnte sich gut vereinen – etwas, was die IRA in vierzig Jahren Terrorismus und Gewalt nicht erreichen konnte;  sogar Wales spricht von einer Trennung von England.  Wir werden mal sehen. Aber der Prozess und die Abwicklung des Brexits haben alles geändert und viel geschädigt.

Letztens: Niemand kann die Zukunft vorhersagen.  Wir erleben heute im Westen einen großen Konflikt zwischen Liberalismus und anderen Mächten.  Der Liberalismus ist in Zukunft keine Selbstverständlichkeit.  Die Kirchen müssen Orte der Begegnung und Unterhaltung, der Debatte und der Wahrheitsfindung sein, wenn die Welt über Trump und Johnson, Bolsonaro und Orban und so weiter verhandelt.  Der Illiberalismus wird die Westeuropäer dazu zwingen, die Wurzeln ihrer Annahmen über Menschenrechte und Verantwortlichkeiten wieder zu entdecken, und das könnte letztendlich eine gute Sache sein.

Zum Schluss möchte ich ein Buch empfehlen.  Der britische Historiker Tom Holland: “Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind” ist ein brillanter Lauf durch die christliche Geschichte, in dem deutlich wird, wie sehr selbst die säkulare Kultur im Westen von christlichen Annahmen geprägt ist.  (Das letzte Kapitel ist ziemlich seltsam, aber der Rest des Buches ist ausgezeichnet.)

Die politische Spannungen in Deutschland sind anders als diejenigen in Großbritannien, aber die hinterlegenden Fragen über Links/Rechts weisen einige Ähnlichkeiten auf. Die Herausforderungen, vor denen jedes Land in Bezug auf Stabilität und den Machtwechsel zu einer neuen Generation steht, sind klar. Das Buch von Tom Holland fordert uns implizit und explizit dazu auf, unsere gemeinsamen Wurzeln wieder zu entdecken, uns den aktuellen Umwälzungen dieser Wurzeln zu stellen und die Zukunft mit Mut, Entschlossenheit und Weitblick zu gestalten. In Großbritannien und Deutschland stehen wir vor Identitätsfragen: wer sind wir und woher stammen wir. Die Antworten sind wichtig.

Und ich habe gerade einen SMS bekommen. Boris Johnson wird am kommenden Montag noch einmal versuchen, eine Parlamentswahl anzukündigen.

Und FC Liverpool steht immer noch an der Spitze des Premier League.

 

Language and leadership

The language used in the House of Commons last night is probably unprecedented. Drawing the name of a murdered MP into the fight was, at the very least, questionable. To describe the contribution of female MPs, pleading with the PM to moderate his language in the light of violence and death threats, as ‘humbug’ is appalling.

I am the bishop of a diocese in which Jo Cox is remembered with massive affection and in which there is great sensitivity to utilisation of her for political purposes. Her family are not just names to be traded.

Words are not neutral – they can become weapons. Words in the mouth of leaders can shape the language and behaviour of all sorts of people, and not always positively. The challenge of leadership is to lead, to behave like the adult in the room, to see the big picture, to hold the long-term perspective, and not to lose sight of the key issue.

The Prime Minister has a particular and weighty responsibility in our current crisis to lead by example. A fundamental element of strong leadership, rooted in character, is to demonstrate humility. The language he is using is destructive and has caused distress. An apology would be in order. More importantly, he needs to lead a recalibration of language, mood and relationship. What we are witnessing currently is the further corruption of our public discourse and the norms of democratic debate.

A colleague said to me this morning that we are in urgent need of recovering the three Rs: respect, responsibility and restraint. Respect for people (opponents as well as friends), the law and language; taking responsibility for our own language and behaviour as well as the common good; restraint even when provoked.

It is incumbent on those who lead to tell the truth, use language wisely (with a view to consequences) and behave with responsibility and respect.

 

Brexit: agencies (House of Lords)

This is the text of my speech moving Amendment 93 to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill on the last day of Report Stage in the House of Lords. It might not make immediate sense without knowledge of the detail, but I post it for the record.

My Lords, I move this amendment for two principle reasons: first, in order to assist the government in its shaping of its case for the UK’s future relationship with the European Union post-Brexit; secondly, because it is consistent with Amendment 49 which was passed earlier in this Report Stage.

Speakers in these debates have repeatedly suggested that anyone who moves an amendment is a hypocritical Remoaner intent on sabotaging the Bill and trying to prevent Brexit from ever happening. I regret the referendum result, but I accept that the UK is to leave – even on this 73rd anniversary of VE Day. My concern, along with many in your Lordships’ House is to ask the government seriously to consider improvements to the Bill … in order both that the people should be clear about the how as well as the what of Brexit and that the transition to a final arrangement might be as good as we can get it. It is my understanding that this is both the role and the responsibility of this House.

I remain concerned that a deeply divided country is being offered two stark alternatives which, if you will bear with me, I will put in biblical terms. Like the people of Israel in the desert, we too easily romanticise the past and yearn to return to Egypt; or, on the other hand, we promise on the other side of the mountain a land flowing with milk and honey (ignoring the challenges that go with it not actually being our land to do with as we will).

I mean it seriously when I suggest that we should be honest in our discourse on Brexit and acknowledge that we shall be spending some years in the wilderness as we begin to work out the consequences of the decisions we have taken and the implications of the relationships we must now begin to establish. Wilderness time is not necessarily negative time – simply a time of waiting and wishing and hoping (or recriminating), but a time for stripping away the clutter, identifying and owning our values and priorities as a nation, and actively bringing together a people divided by their varying apprehensions of events that have befallen them. That serious need for a concrete unifying strategy has yet to be addressed seriously in either House of this Parliament – slogans and wishful thinking are not enough.

With this in mind, then, I come to the substance of the amendment standing in my name and to which, I am sure, the Prime Minister would give her consent as it rests on commitments already articulated by her.

In her Mansion House speech of 2 March 2018 the Prime Minister confirmed for the first time that the UK will seek to maintain a formal relationship with certain EU agencies after Brexit. She further acknowledged that the terms of the future UK-EU relationship may see the UK Parliament take the step of replicating certain provisions of EU law. She put it like this (and forgive me for quoting at length in order to obtain clarity):

Our default is that UK law may not necessarily be identical to EU law, but it should achieve the same outcomes. In some cases Parliament might choose to pass an identical law – businesses who export to the EU tell us that it is strongly in their interest to have a single set of regulatory standards that mean they can sell into the UK and EU markets.

If the Parliament of the day decided not to achieve the same outcomes as EU law, it would be in the knowledge that there may be consequences for our market access.

And there will need to be an independent mechanism to oversee these arrangements.

We will also want to explore with the EU, the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries: the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

We would, of course, accept that this would mean abiding by the rules of those agencies and making an appropriate financial contribution.

She then went on to set out what the mutual benefits of such an approach might be. These include firstly, that such membership (however described) is the only way to ensure that products only need to undergo one series of approvals in one country; secondly, that such membership would enable the UK to contribute its technical expertise in setting and enforcing appropriate rules; and thirdly, that this might then allow UK firms to resolve certain challenges related to the agencies through UK courts rather than the ECJ.

That is enough for now to demonstrate the Prime Minister’s case. She concluded with a further statement about the sovereignty of Parliament and the acknowledged costs of rejecting agency rules for membership of the relevant agency and linked market access rights.

Now, it is important to remember that these decentralised agencies were originally established following a proposal from the European Commission and agreement by both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Which, if I am correct, means that the establishment of over 40 bodies was achieved with the support of the UK.

Surely it makes sense, then, to be consistent and retain access to them.

As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech, there will be consequences of not doing so. For example – and to take just one, the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA): Our international reporting and monitoring obligations on maritime safety are currently handled via EMSA and there are shared EU rules on seafarer working conditions, which enables the UK to maintain its status as a ‘quality flag state’ under international law. The complexities involved in replicating this would appear to be immense. Furthermore, establishing a domestic equivalent to the EMSA will inevitably put a huge strain on the civil service, take many years to negotiate, and will be enormously expensive. (Yet another uncosted consequence of Brexit?)

I could equally cite the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, Europol, the European Medicines Agency, and others.

My Lords, is it not probable that any future UK-EU trading relationship might demand replication of certain EU measures – product safety regulations, for example? As other regulations continue to evolve in Brussels in the years to come, is it not probable (if not inevitable) that the UK might have to keep pace, if reciprocal arrangements with the EU27 are to continue? (For example, those covering matrimonial and parental judgments.)

My Lords, this amendment does not in any way place an additional burden on the government, nor does it ask the government to change its stated policy stance. It formalises and reinforces those commitments made by the Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech.

Furthermore, with phase two of the negotiations now well underway, the addition of this Clause would demonstrate Parliament’s wish for the UK to maintain a close relationship with the EU – and, in this sense, it is consistent with the role envisaged for Parliament in amendment 49.

I think it is fair to say that although amendments relating to EU agencies were rejected in the House of Commons, this was possibly because the Government had not at that point announced its policy position. Now that the policy position is clear, sending this amendment back to the Commons would simply give an opportunity for further debate on future UK-EU cooperation.

My Lords, I hope I have given a clear rationale for this amendment and its inclusion on the face of the bill. I hope the Minister in responding will recognise the constructive nature of it and its attempt to give some idea as to what sort of milk and honey might lie over the mountain once we have negotiated the wilderness journey. It does no one any favours to pretend we are where we are not; it does everybody a favour to attend to a detail that at least has the virtue of acknowledging the uncertainties ahead, the size and potential costs of the journey upon which we have now embarked, and gives one element of shape to what to many looks, to quote another biblical line, somewhat “formless and void”.

I commend it for debate and I beg to move.

(I tested the opinion of the House and the amendment was passed by 298 votes to 227. It now goes back to the House of Commons.)

 

The EU (Withdrawal) Bill: debate in the House of Lords

This is the basic text of my speech in the House of Lords during the Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill:

My Lords, many speakers will attend to the technical and legal details of this Bill, and they will be better equipped than I am to do so. I want to use my time, therefore, to pay attention to a question that lies behind the nature of this Bill and the choices we are required to make in scrutinising and attempting to improve it. This question applies to all sides of the argument, whether we think leaving the European Union is an unmitigated disaster or the best thing since Winston Churchill mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

The question goes beyond economics and trade deals, haunts constitutional matters, and refuses to be submerged by ideologically-driven assertions that promise what can’t be promised and ridicule arguments that are inconvenient. Brexit has unleashed the normalisation of lies, and rendered too easily acceptable the demonising of people who, with integrity and intelligence, venture to hold a contrary view. We are in danger of securing an economic platform at the expense of a culture of respect and intelligent democratic argument.

The question I allude to is simply this: at the end of this process what sort of Britain – and Europe – do we want to inhabit? I accept that this is almost an existential question – challenge, even – but as we debate the legislative detail, we must not lose sight of the point of it all. Existential questions can’t be determined by statute, but the shape of statute speaks loudly of what we think our society should be for, and for whom. This is why debate about discretionary powers of ministers to make laws with equivalent force to primary legislation is of such importance. When such powers are so wide that this House is asked to leave to the judgement of ministers the meaning of such terms as “appropriate”, it is only right to ask for definition. After all, history is riddled with the unintended consequences of what might be termed “enabling legislation”.

But, let’s be honest. Brexit is technically so demanding and complex that, if I were Prime Minister, I would want the authority to deal flexibly with anomalies and technical weaknesses as quickly and smoothly as possible as the consequences of Brexit become known. I understand the technical element of this; but, this Bill goes beyond legislative technicalities and impacts strongly on constitutional arrangements and the balance of power. Surely, if “taking back control” by Parliament is to mean anything, it must mean refraining from bypassing the essential scrutiny that Parliament is privileged and required to provide. Hard parliamentary scrutiny might be inconvenient, but the long-term consequences of granting ministers unprecedented powers (as set out in this Bill) must be considered as they will shape the deeper culture of our state and change our assumptions about democracy.

I think this suggests that, although any sane person will recognise the government’s need to have significant powers to ensure that process (and legal certainty post-Brexit) is as smooth as possible, there must be limits to the use of such powers – or, as a colleague of mine put it succinctly and colourfully, we must avoid Brexit Britain turning into Tudor Britain.

Clearly, there is a balance to be struck here. I do not believe that this Bill, as currently formulated, achieves that balance; nor does it demonstrate that the genuine fears of constitutional experts and lawyers have been properly heard.

I have two concerns about the culture in which this debate is being conducted in this country – looked on with incredulity by those looking at us from beyond these islands.

First, almost every paper, every debate, every statement about Brexit is clothed in purely economic terms. It is almost as if the economy were everything and economics the only Good. Yet, the economy – one might add the word ‘trade’ – is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end … which is about human flourishing and the Common Good. The economy – trade – exists for the building of society, but society is more than the economy. It is not enough for us uncritically to assume that a market society (as opposed to a social market) is a given or an ultimate good. Culture is more than money and things.

Secondly, the referendum tore off the veneer of civilised discourse in this country and unleashed – gave permission for, perhaps – an undisguised language of suspicion, denigration, hatred and vilification. To be a Leaver is to be narrow-mindedly stupid; to be a Remainer is to be a traitor. Our media – and not just the ill-disciplined bear pit of social media – have not helped in challenging this appalling rhetoric or the easy acceptance of such destructive language.

Yet, beneath this lurks an uncomfortable charge articulated in a recent Carnegie report on tensions between Russia and the West by the deputy director of the Russian Institute for Political and Military Analysis in Moscow: if Russians would still die for the Motherland, what would we die for? Or, as Martin Luther King suggested: if we don’t know what we would die for, we have no idea what we would live for. Once we have ‘done’ Brexit, then what? What was it for? Who do we think we are?

If this debate on Britain’s future is to have any lasting value, and not just undermine long-term relationships of respect and trust, then attention must be paid to the corruption of this public discourse. Politicians could begin by moderating their language and engaging in intelligent, informed and respectful argument that chooses to eschew personalised or generalised vindictiveness or violence. My Lords, we must not allow our body politic to be defined by Brexit; rather, we will need to transcend the divisions currently being forced by the terms of discussion. Peers have an opportunity to model good ways of disagreeing well that might encourage others that there is an alternative to a political culture that appears sometimes to have been reduced to an unbridled tribalism where the first casualty is too often the dignity of the other.

My Lords, please let us not lose sight of the deeper question that lies behind the technical detail of this Bill.

 

The normalisation of corruption

A cursory glance at social media makes it clear that there is huge concern – across political and cultural divides – about the degeneration of public life, behaviour and language. It is not hard to see why.

Against the explosion of sexual harassment claims (which exposes decades of ‘normal’ behaviour that went unchallenged because of its normality), we also see an eruption of trial by media. I have little sympathy for those who find themselves caught out, but do worry about those who are innocent, but now find themselves tried and sentenced by allegation. There must surely be implications for what I am calling the integrity of the public discourse.

But, we now have a US President who is a proven liar, misogynist and sexual predator (by his own taped evidence), and he continues in power. The lying and misrepresentation does not appear to disturb those who would have strung up previous presidents for just one faux pas. Lying and misrepresenting have become normalised. And there is no penalty.

Yesterday the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, told a House of Commons committee that the 57 Brexit impact assessment papers do not exist. In October these not only existed, but went into what he described as “excruciating detail”. When Parliament demanded sight of them, a highly secretive bunch of papers was eventually submitted to a limited audience – deemed by readers on all sides to be statements of the obvious. This turn of events should, at the very least, be deeply concerning.

The question here is not about the apparent (or should that be ‘alleged’) incompetence of the government in driving the negotiations for the UK’s departure from the EU, but the fact that someone up there is misleading not only Parliament, but the British public. This is not about whether or not we should be leaving the EU; this is not about whether the government is going about its work in the right way or competently; this is not about democracy, parliamentary sovereignty or the legitimate confidentiality demanded by sensitive process; this is about the normalisation of corruption (which, in terms of language, is no less serious than in other ethical matters), the easy acceptance of lying and misrepresentation by a bewildered public, and the implications for civil society (as well as what we teach our children by word and example) of allowing language to be debased, facts to be dismissed in the face of ‘alternative truths’, and for this to be done with such casual impunity.

I have lots of conversations with concerned politicians and journalists about the corruption of the political discourse. I am less sure what to do about it other than to challenge it and try to demonstrate a different way. This goes deeper than “speaking out”.

Any ideas?