The fate of Lords reform now rests in Labour's hands

With the Tories irretrievably divided, the bill's future depends on Labour.

As was rumoured this morning, David Cameron has now dropped the programme motion on House of Lords reform, which would have limited debate on the bill to 10 days. With upwards of 70 Tories prepared to join Labour and vote against the motion, there was no hope of it making it past the Commons. In withdrawing the motion, Cameron has merely brought forward the government's defeat.

The second reading vote will still go ahead and, with the support of Labour, the bill will proceed with a large majority. But unless the government introduces a guillotine motion at a later date, the risk remains that MPs will talk it into the ground.

The upshot is that the fate of Lords reform now rests in Labour's hands. If Ed Miliband's party agrees to support closure motions to limit debate on the bill, the legislation could yet make it through the Commons. Responding to Cameron's move, Sadiq Khan has pledged that Labour will do all it can "to ensure the bill progresses". The party's opposition to the programme motion was not, he said, a "wrecking tactic" but an attempt to improve an "inadequate bill".

As Khan's words imply, Cameron and Nick Clegg will need to offer concessions in order to win his party's support. The most obvious would be a referendum on Lords reform, as proposed by Labour in its 2010 manifesto. This would have the added benefit of placating at least some of the Conservative rebels, such as Nadhim Zahawi and Rory Stewart, who have said they would be prepared to support the bill were a public vote promised. Others, flushed with success after the AV campaign, simply want the chance to give Clegg another bloody nose. (We must hope the voters decide otherwise.)

The Lib Dem leader has always resisted a referendum on the grounds that all three of the main parties supported reform in their manifestos. But with parliament divided, he will find it hard to argue that the people should not be given a say. Tonight, a referendum looks like the only way to avoid yet another defeat for reform.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for a referendum on Lords reform. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Building peace in a dangerous world needs resources, not just goodwill

Conflict resolution is only the first step.

Thursday 21 September is the UN-designated International Day of Peace. At noon on this day, which has been celebrated for the last 25 years, the UN general secretary will ring the Peace Bell on the UN headquarters in New York and people of good will around the world will take part in events to mark the occasion. At the same time, spending on every conceivable type of weaponry will continue at record levels.

The first couple of decades after the end of the Cold War saw a steady reduction in conflict, but lately that trend seems to have been reversed. There are currently around 40 active armed conflicts around the world with violence and suffering at record levels. According to the 2017 Global Peace Index worldwide military spending last year amounted to a staggering $1.7 trillion and a further trillion dollars worth of economic growth was lost as a result. This compares with around 10 billion dollars spent on long term peace building.

To mark World Peace Day, International Alert, a London-based non-government agency which specialises in peace building, is this week publishing Redressing the Balance, a report contrasting the trivial amounts spent on reconciliation and the avoidance of war with the enormous and ever growing global military expenditure.  Using data from the Institute for Economics and Peace, the report’s author, Phil Vernon, argues that money spent on avoiding and mitigating the consequences of conflict is not only morally right, but cost-effective – "every dollar invested in peace building reduces the cost of conflict".

According to Vernon, "the international community has a tendency to focus on peacemaking and peacekeeping at the expense of long term peace building."  There are currently 100,000 soldiers, police and other observers serving 16 UN operations on four continents. He says what’s needed instead of just peace keeping is a much greater sustained investment, involving individuals and agencies at all levels, to address the causes of violence and to give all parties a stake in the future. Above all, although funding and expertise can come from outside, constructing a durable peace will only work if there is local ownership of the process.

The picture is not wholly depressing. Even in the direst conflicts there are examples where the international community has help to fund and train local agencies with the result that local disputes can often be settled without escalating into full blown conflicts. In countries as diverse as East Timor, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Nepal long term commitment by the international community working with local people has helped build durable institutions in the wake of vicious civil wars. Nearer to home, there has long been recognition that peace in Ireland can only be sustained by addressing long-standing grievances, building resilient institutions and ensuring that all communities have a stake in the outcome.

At a micro level, too, there is evidence that funding and training local agencies can contribute to longer term stability. In the eastern Congo, for example, various non-government organisations have worked with local leaders, men and women from different ethnic groups to settle disputes over land ownership which have helped fuel 40 years of mayhem. In the Central African Republic training and support to local Muslim and Christian leaders has helped reduce tensions. In north east Nigeria several agencies are helping to reintegrate the hundreds of traumatised girls and young women who have escaped the clutches of Boko Haram only to find themselves rejected by their communities.

Peace building, says Vernon, is the poor cousin of other approaches to conflict resolution. In future, he concludes, it must become a core component of future international interventions. "This means a major re-think by donor governments and multilateral organisations of how they measure success… with a greater focus placed on anticipation, prevention and the long term." Or, to quote the young Pakistani winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Malala Yousufzai: "If you want to avoid war, then instead of sending guns, send books. Instead of tanks, send pens. Instead of soldiers, send teachers."

Redressing the Balance by Phil Vernon is published on September 21.   Chris Mullin is the chairman of International Alert.