Menu
UK Parliament

Lord McDonald of Salford: Lord Speaker's Corner

12 February 2025

Former top diplomat Simon McDonald, Lord McDonald of Salford, is the latest guest on Lord Speaker’s Corner.

Watch now

Lord Speaker:

Lord McDonald. Simon, welcome to the podcast. Delighted to have you along. Maybe I can start with your early life. You were born in Salford in 1961. Tell us about your upbringing.

Lord McDonald:

Thank you, John. I have been thinking a lot about my early life recently, partly when I had to choose a title, I realised that what was at the beginning meant an awful lot to me. And second, because my mum died on Christmas Day, and so we've just had the funeral and I've just seen my Salford family. We don't get together very often these days, but getting together reminded me of the values of my childhood. It was a Roman Catholic childhood. The church was very big in our lives. My dad was a pillar of the local community. My grandfather was a well-known businessman, and the things that they cared about, I realise I still care about now. So leaving things better than you found them, doing your best, helping other people. Yeah, looking back, they have kind of guided me throughout my life.

But the other importance of Salford for my career and for what I'm doing now is that when I was a child in the 1970s, it was utterly miserable. Everything had closed, everything was derelict. It was grey and grimy. All the coal mines had gone, but the soot was still there on every brick. As I got older and went to university, it was a real surprise to me that our country was as big in the world as it still was because my personal experience had been of decline. And that's important too because, I think, even though we are still a great country and we can do great things in the world, we are clearly not the country we used to be. And how that is factored into our politics and policymaking fascinates me.

Lord Speaker:

You went to university. Tell us, you must've been a bright character, you ended up…

Lord McDonald:

I went to Cambridge and very few people from my school in Salford had been to Cambridge. Indeed, the headmaster disapproved of Oxbridge because he thought they were elitist. But I had a great history teacher and he said, "Ignore Brother Hilary, apply." So I applied to Pembroke to read law, partly because as a 17-year-old I thought the only two degrees that people did were medicine or law, and I was not going to be a doctor. I've always been squeamish and I remain squeamish. So I put myself down for law. Within three days of arriving, I realised that wasn't for me. So from day five, I was a historian and I remain a historian.

Lord Speaker:

And what was your period of study?

Lord McDonald:

Well, because it was Cambridge, we could do anything. The only rule was that in both part one and part two, you had to have at least one paper either side of the year, 1715, the death of Louis XIV. So I did a lot of American history, I did a lot of colonial history, I did the arms race before the First World War. Those three papers really stayed with me to this day.

Lord Speaker:

And at 21, a very early age, when you come out of university, you went straight into the Foreign Office. What guided you towards public service? You mentioned your roots. Was that part of it and was it your studying history, given the global view you had of it, did that encourage you to go for the Foreign Office?

Lord McDonald:

Absolutely. I’m a product of Beveridge and Butler, I left university without one pound of debt. I owed all my start in life to the British state. My parents didn't have to pay either. So giving back, contributing to the country that made me appealed very strongly.

Lord Speaker:

And what you've seen in your diplomatic career, you've been posted so many places in Europe and Asia and North America and in the Middle East. Indeed, I think you were the ambassador in Israel for a period as well. Can you give us a flavour of your experience and the...

Lord McDonald:

Well, one thing that strongly appealed about the Foreign Office as a career was it seemed to me even as a teenager that the longer you kept at it, the more interesting the work became. And that was absolutely the case.

And second, that the work had immense variety. So as you've been describing, I've worked in many countries and dealt with many issues and I finished up as Permanent Secretary, so the head of the diplomatic service. And in that job I visited 123 different countries and territories. So I've seen the whole world in my career, and there's nothing like seeing things for reinforcing important messages. So I see the fragility of international institutions. I see the fragility of the natural environment we live in. I have seen the desperation of conflict, but also the resilience of human beings and their ability even in dire circumstances to imagine things better and make them better.

Lord Speaker:

You mentioned Butskellism there and the post-war accord with global institutions, is that fraying, is it gone and is there a new paradigm that we have to adopt in the present world?

Lord McDonald:

It's not gone, but it sure as hell is fraying. And there are many reasons over many years. And for most of my career, the reasons why the institutions of the late 1940s were fraying were because Russia and then China were not particularly happy with that post Second World War settlement. The surprise in recent years is the United States being a revisionist power, not liking the bill paid by the United States to underpin that settlement. That's been there in the background for some time, but it's rushed into the foreground with President Trump, particularly in his new second term.

Lord Speaker:

Right. Before we go on to that, you were the ambassador in Israel, as I mentioned, from 2003 to 2006, and you have spoken against Britain's long-term presence in the Middle East. Give us your experience as ambassador and your views and how we should approach the Middle East.

Lord McDonald:

With modesty. I think we have a role, we absolutely have a role because we have a responsibility. We helped create many of the problems that beset the region today. Many times it wasn't a conscious creation. They weren't wicked people who are our predecessors, but with inadequate knowledge of what they were facing, they made things worse.

So that being the case, I think we have a continuing responsibility. We have continuing knowledge and expertise. I think the UK's is one of the few diplomatic services that habitually posts Arabic speakers to be ambassadors across the Arabic-speaking world. Our ambassador in Israel is a fluent Hebrew speaker. So we have real expertise and I think, crucially, we can, when we're doing it right, present ourselves as a neutral player, as a player that is not taking sides, that can work with everybody. And so try to advance the general interest rather than a specific national interest. But given there are so many factors and so many players, this is necessarily a smaller role than we had in the past and it's necessarily a role we do in partnership with others.

Lord Speaker:

A two-state solution, that's the aspiration. Given your practical experience, how far away is that, if it's at all possible?

Lord McDonald:

Right now, it seems very far away, but I also believe, deeply believe that it's the only way forward that will work for the majority on both sides. Israel clearly is the more powerful player. After the horrific catastrophe of the 7th of October 2023, Israel came back strongly. Israel has militarily defeated Hamas, it has defeated Hezbollah and it has clipped Iran's wings in its - Israel's - neighbourhood.

So Israel is clearly a strong, you could say, sovereign player. Israel is able to make the weather, but it is at a great cost. Israel is mobilised. Israel is on a constant war footing and Israel can only maintain the status quo, I believe by becoming a garrison state, which I do not think was the vision of its founding fathers. I do not think it's what most Israelis want for themselves. So the alternative to that is a negotiation with the Palestinians acknowledging the legitimacy of their political cause, sharing the land and making peace.

Lord Speaker:

You mentioned the fragility of the world, and if we could combine that with your presence in the Middle East and that, we'll look at Afghanistan, we'll look at Iraq. Is that the issue that is in your mind when you talk about fragility?

Lord McDonald:

Yes. And wider than that, John. I mean you've mentioned the conflicts, which are most in the news, but across Sub-Saharan Africa, there are wars raging, which are not really reported in the UK. The one that gets closest to being reported is in Sudan. But across the Sahel in West Africa, there are a string of conflicts which are blighting the local life and which Europeans don't really know about, so don't really care about.

Lord Speaker:

You briefly mentioned the Trump administration, the coming of the second administration. Give us your views on that.

Lord McDonald:

It's very important and very interesting, and a third opening thought is it's very different even from the first Trump administration. I was PUS [Permanent Under-Secretary] in the Foreign Office in January 2017 when he came in the first time, and he, I think, was quite bemused by his new job. He decided to run almost on a whim. There wasn't a great lead up, there wasn't a lifelong plan. He said that he took the decision three days before the announcement. So this was something that was done last minute, seat of the pants, with a very small team and a pretty unclear agenda.

So when he became President, he was very obviously feeling his way forward. One way that was demonstrated was how he assembled his team in the first administration, which was largely of people he did not know. So who were recommended by senior figures in the Republican Party. Two consequences of that were that there was a lot of falling out within the first administration and a lot of resignations. Second time around with the gap of four years, he is much clearer in his own mind what he wants to do. The first week has been absolutely frenetic.

And the team around him is uber loyal to himself and he is getting that team confirmed. As far as I can see, only one of his nominations has fallen by the wayside: Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General. The rest will be in place in the next fortnight and they will do his bidding

Lord Speaker:

As a diplomat, no doubt you'll have in your mind, Greenland and the Chagos Archipelago.

Lord McDonald:

Indeed. Well, Greenland is one of the most interesting diplomatic initiatives the President has taken early days. I remember election night back in November, not all that long ago, and everybody was saying, "Yeah, yeah, this is going to be a rocky ride. Expect the unexpected. You never know what will come up." And even though we had that mindset, nobody saw the Greenland initiative coming, which I think is kind of interesting.

Second is that the reaction internationally has been of horror. I think that's the wrong reaction. I can understand shock because this has come out of a clear blue sky, but when you look at the detail, it has a certain internal logic, and very specifically between the United States and Denmark.

So the United States for the last 250 years has been growing its territory often, even usually, by purchase. The biggest such purchase, which everyone remembers, was the Alaska purchase from Tsarist Russia in 1867. But there were others that followed, including most recently in 1917, what is now the US Virgin Islands from Denmark. Until 1917, they had been the Danish West Indies. So there is a history of both purchasing territory and involving Denmark. Even with Greenland, there is history because after the Second World War, the Truman administration made an offer of 100 million in gold bullion for Greenland. And it was seen off. Nothing came of it, but it has a history and I think that is important to remember.

Next thing to remember is the changed strategic position of the High North. Greenland is the biggest island in the world and has a critical position in the Arctic. Denmark frankly is under-equipped to carry out the task on behalf of the west for keeping the Arctic open to our interests. As a Nato ally of course, that helps, but by itself it is underpowered.

Third, a huge issue is the views of the Greenlanders. The Greenlanders have not been happy with their position in the greater kingdom of Denmark for a long time. Everybody is reacting on their behalf at the moment, but I think their views need to be taken into consideration and their views may surprise people. It may be that the idea of being a citizen of the United States with the ability to work anywhere in the United States could strongly appeal to people whose economic options right now are very limited.

The last thing, which is a more general saying and something which has puzzled me through my career is the power of small numbers. As I say, Greenland is the biggest island in the world. Only 56,000 people live there. That group cannot in any serious way look after themselves. So even though I think we should listen to them, the idea that their views are the end of the story, I just don't buy. Because any group which doesn't have the resources to look after itself needs to be respectful of the groups that are going to do it on their behalf. And at the moment, the United States is coming forward offering to fulfil that role. So although the proposition is a shock, I don't think it's outrageous.

Lord Speaker:

So the strategic case for the US acquiring Greenland is quite important.

Lord McDonald:

Is stronger than the knee-jerk reaction likes to concede. But of course, John, it's way more difficult even than my summary, which was attempted to be comprehensive. But the more I read, the more complicated it becomes. And another fact which has not given much airplay is that there is an existing agreement between the United States and Denmark about the stationing of US troops in Greenland. They have the rights, they have had it for I believe more than 50 years to station up to 15,000 US military in Greenland. At the moment, they choose not to exercise that. So if it is the military vulnerability that is at the bottom of this, there is an existing mechanism to address that.

So I think my basic points are it's more interesting and less outrageous than first appears. And what should happen next is a negotiation.

Lord Speaker:

The Chagos Archipelago?

Lord McDonald:

Well, the Chagos is very, very important to us, more important to the UK directly than Greenland because it is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). We were the main colonial power in the Indian Ocean until we left in the '60s and '70s. At that time, a deal was done to detach the Chagos Archipelago from the newly independent Mauritius to keep it. And we did that because the US was very interested in having a base. We talk always about Diego Garcia as a joint base between the UK and US, but the truth is it's overwhelmingly American. We are there because the Americans consider that base their most valuable real estate outside the United States. So it is very important because it gives them sight of the world that they can't see from the continental US.

In this complicated history, we did some things which were against conventions in the 1960s. It was one of the rules of decolonization that colonies should not be split up by the decolonizing power. But BIOT was already always an exception because it was a group of islands across a whole ocean that were put together for British administrative convenience. And when we were considering, with the local residents, independence, we immediately agreed that Seychelles and Maldives shouldn't be lumped together with Mauritius.

So there was a split right at the beginning. But Chagos, according to the rules, should always have been with Mauritius. Over many, many years, this sort of rumbled away in the background, but in the last decade it flared up. Now I was PUS in the Foreign Office at the time, and there was a long discussion about whether we should play along with a process at the International Court of Justice. And we succeeded in deferring or deflecting that for quite a long time, but in the end we decided to engage. And I think that is a crucial fact. But once you have decided to engage in a legal process, you can't then walk away from it when you don't like the result. And that is part of the commentary right now.

Lord Speaker:

How long have we been engaging in that?

Lord McDonald:

Well, the court case was in 2019 and the sort of delay tactics were many years before that. And when it got to the ICJ, okay, it's an advisory opinion, but in that opinion, I think 14 judges opined, and 13 of them were against the UK. So we had only the Americans supporting it. So this was a very strong signal. So now we are trying to comply with the terms of that advisory opinion, which is to return sovereignty to Mauritius, while at the same time preserving our essential strategic interest and the essential strategic interest of the United States.

Everything I've seen about the deal on the table achieves those two objectives. But there's a lot of criticism including in the House of Lords about how the UK government is behaving. But I think it overlooks three crucial things. One is that although the opinion is advisory, that is not the end of the legal story. And if we just set it to one side, other processes are available, and we have no reason to think they would end up more favourably than the first one.

Second, the objection we shouldn't have been involved in the first place. There was a specific cutout when the International Court of Justice was set up, which said that the United Kingdom would not have to deal with its Commonwealth partners in that court. Yet that was way back then, but having engaged, again, we have to accept the results of a process we have taken part in.

And third, the agreement on the table protects our interests. Many people claim that this is opening the door to China whilst giving no evidence that it's opening the door to China. It is a fact that of the 55, I think, members of the African Union, only Mauritius and Eswatini are not part of the Chinese Belt and Road initiative. So Mauritius' orientation is much more pro-Indian than pro-China. And in this agreement we secure the Western interest for at least 99 years, and in diplomacy, 99 years is a long time.

Lord Speaker:

A long time. Again, you alluded to our position with soft power. Has that diminished over the years or do we still have considerable soft power? And in relation to America, what advice would you give the new ambassador to America, our ambassador, if he would take it?

Lord McDonald:

Also a member of this House. I think the UK has immense soft power, and one reason we have that power is that we also have hard power. And I think soft power without hard power doesn't take you all that far. So the mix is very important, but the soft element for the UK is particularly strong. And I have written about that. I call the elements the magnificent seven, and I'll give you just two of them.

The first, I always start with the judiciary. The United Kingdom's judiciary and legal system, I think has the strongest reputation around the world. And the proof of that is the rest of the world comes to London for arbitration, for binding arbitration. So when a country has billions at stake, it trusts the British system and the people operating it to come up with a fair solution. That is immensely important to the UK.

The second thing, the second thing immensely important are British institutions. I think the monarchy is very important for the UK's image around the world. The fact that ultimate loyalty is vested in an institution which is not active in everyday politics is very helpful to the whole of the UK system. The fact that the individuals are of such clear personal probity I think is very important to the UK. And I think it helps that they're trained from this from birth. I don't think it's an accident that the late Queen and King Charles have such a high reputation. But also the institutions include this place, Parliament and my first career, the Civil Service.

It's not that they are perfect, they are very clearly imperfect institutions, but they recognise that. We're always trying to improve. We are very, very severe with those who break either the formal rules or the informal codes in these institutions. So this essential selflessness that members of Parliament in the Commons and the Lords, Civil Service.

Lord Speaker:

Peter Hennessy's Good Chaps theory.

Lord McDonald:

Yes, I have a lot of time. I think the people peopling these institutions are trying to help the public good rather than trying to help themselves. And in many countries I have visited, that key requirement of public service is not as clear.

Lord Speaker:

And your advice to the new ambassador?

Lord McDonald:

Ah, sorry.

Lord Speaker:

Were you dodging that?

Lord McDonald:

No, no, no. I'm not dodging that. [laughter] I briefly forgot John. Peter Mandelson is a very interesting choice. One thing that he has, which frankly no professional diplomat can match is media experience. He knows how to handle himself in front of a microphone. He's been doing it all his adult life. And I think the media aspects of the job of the next ambassador are going to be very important to his success. The President absorbs a lot of views and opinions via Fox News. So the new ambassador has to be a regular guest on Fox News, and someone with a profile and facility of Peter Mandelson, I think, can be that regular guest.

Second, Peter Mandelson has proper trade experience and although-

Lord Speaker:

EU Commissioner for trade.

Lord McDonald:

He was EU Commissioner. And although getting a trade deal for the United Kingdom will be really, really difficult, there are so many vested interests in the United States that have to be squared. Having someone who's a genuine expert I think puts us ahead of the game and will help with his credibility in the key parts of his job.

And the third thing which he conspicuously has, which I think is very important for the British ambassador to the United States, is he has very strong personal links into 10 Downing Street. Of course formally speaking, our representatives are of the King, but in practise, they're representing the government. And in one or two particular posts that link into the Prime Minister's office is very important. And Peter Mandelson has that.

We've been talking about the consequences internationally, which are huge, but even bigger are the consequences for the United States internally-

But within the United States, yes, the Presidents have traditionally been unifying figures. They've even talked about healing. This President is not about either of those things. He is about looking after his own. And we have an example even in the first week, because of the wildfires raging in California, there is a need for assistance. Usually FEMA comes forward and usually FEMA's assistance is decided by need. President Trump is attaching conditions to that aid. That is new and I'm pretty sure disagreeable for the citizens of California. So that sort of wedge driving will have big consequences for his country.

Lord Speaker:

Well, Civil Service. There's been criticism of the Civil Service, it has been too slow to react and the type of environment we face today and the challenges ahead of us nationally, we've got to have a different approach. There's been a view they've been generalists, also that civil servants experienced a particular department, are there on a particular project for 6 or 12 months, they move on, and there isn't the continuity and the skillset for that. Do you see any merit in that criticism?

Lord McDonald:

Some merit, but I think it misses the point of the Civil Service. For me, the Civil Service is one of the institutions which defines the United Kingdom and its key features are that it is permanent, it is impartial, and it is expert.

Now there's a lot of focus on the expert bit at the moment thinking that generalists are not good enough for the task at hand. My counter to that is that the task at hand keeps changing. So what we need are good people who with agility and enthusiasm, skill up to the new tasks. When you have a relatively small department like the Foreign Office was, that was the only way through. I could not have run the department if everybody was very specialised because specialisms become obsolete surprisingly quickly. Instead, I had people who were willing and able to get their head around new tasks.

Again, for me, one of a key example was during the coronavirus pandemic, we had no experience at procuring PPE. It just wasn't part of our knowledge before this struck. And I would say, so what? What counted was that people across the network rapidly acquired those skills and delivered for the United Kingdom. So the key contributions of the Foreign Office during the pandemic were helping the government access PPE, especially in China and getting Brits home. So there are the continuing things and the consular duty is a continuing key core function of the Foreign Office. So that combination of doing core business and adapting to the new agenda is I think a robust model for the whole Civil Service.

Lord Speaker:

Even in general, the Civil Service in the future, take for example, infrastructure projects. I think we could say over the past, what, 40 years or so, there's been a litany of disasters in terms of that. Now, maybe unfairly the Civil Service get the blame for that and we should have a different mindset to it. So how can the Civil Service respond with agility?

Lord McDonald:

Well, I mean, John, the most notorious of those infrastructure projects was HS2 and-

Lord Speaker:

Yeah, but it goes way back.

Lord McDonald:

... I thought it was a mistake myself from the get-go.

Lord Speaker:

But it goes away back. There's quite a litany.

Lord McDonald:

It's true. But that is the most recent one that went agley. But as I say, I think the idea as a Northerner that the finest thing to happen to a Northerner is to have a quicker way to get south is not the way forward. It felt to me that after the pandemic, that helping people work at home, giving people a fulfilling life close to where they're born is the better way forward.

So extra capacity from the north to the south feels to me missing what our country actually needs. I acknowledge that this is a minority view, John. One reason why our projects across the board are worse than, say, similar projects in Japan or China or even France, is our planning regime, that every single road, bridge, railway has to go through a very protracted planning legal procedure. Every government I've worked for identified our planning laws as an obstacle, and every government so far has failed really to grip it. I note that the new Labour government is gearing up to attempt. I hope they succeed. But I note that every previous effort has failed.

Lord Speaker:

You’ve got 20 departments, say, government departments, 5 ministers in each department, 100 ministers. You've got a Cabinet that meets, say, for a couple of hours a day. Is that the best way to go about business?

Lord McDonald:

I think the 19th century model has a lot to commend it, and in the 19th century model, we had relatively fewer ministries. So with clearer responsibilities that didn't overlap so much. I think that's a good way to organise things.

The other key part of the old model was the prime minister being primus inter pares. That held the ring where there was a dispute between ministers. Then the prime minister was available, set overall direction after agreement in cabinet. But let secretaries of state get on with the job. That allowing secretaries of state to get on with the job has been distinctly missing from the British system for at least 25 years. The centre wants not only to know what's going on, it wants to control what's going on everywhere.

So I think reconnecting with that older British tradition of secretaries of state being empowered, staying in their job for a longer period, and the Prime Minister checking in once a year or whatever, to make sure that things are progressing as agreed, would serve us better than having number 10 hyperactive trying to take every single decision no matter how small or no matter how quickly it needs to be taken.

Lord Speaker:

Very interesting. That point of view because-

Lord McDonald:

Yeah, no, prime ministers tend to disagree with that. I was thinking of that point of view, Alastair Campbell I think disagreed with that point of view. But I think there has been a lot of, not exactly infantilizing but disempowering of secretaries of state. I absolutely agree we have too many junior ministers. I remember an Economist article years ago saying that the UK had one quarter of the world's junior ministers. That is going it.

Again, it goes back to our history. It's a lot to do with patronage, that if someone is drawing a salary from you, they're more loyal to you. But I think efficiency would suggest that fewer ministers would serve the government better.

Lord Speaker:

And you've been in the House of Lords since 2021. What advice would you give us given the House of Lords is normally under the hammer in terms of being more acceptable to people as an institution?

Lord McDonald:

Of course it's a great institution, but it is kind of weird. When you come in, the traditions don't immediately make sense, but you work them out and all of them have a justification. To boiling down my thoughts, I think that the House of Lords should focus on what it does best and drop some of the rest.

Lord Speaker:

And what's that?

Lord McDonald:

So what we do, I think two things we do really very well. The first is revision and improvement of legislation. Legislation is always drafted in a hurry. The Commons basically has given up scrutiny to any depth. So the only place in the British system where that essential scrutiny and improvement happens is in the House of Lords. You have hardworking people, expert people, well-meaning people who I think improve, really do improve the laws of the land. And it strikes me every time legislation is finally approved and there are gracious speeches between the front benches. The government always acknowledges that the House has helped, even when they weren't particularly happy that it delayed things. They see that in the end, having that careful working through of the consequences is worth it. So that's one.

The second thing I think we do really well are the more general debates about the big issues in our society. So I think the single most interesting debate I've taken part in that I listened, I was a new peer, so I didn't put my name down, I listened the whole day was about assisted dying. It was very thoughtful, it was comprehensive, it was profound, and I think it helped move the national debate. I think the Leadbeater legislation derives in part from the serious debates in this House.

Lord Speaker:

Soft power, we mentioned that previously. Do you feel the House of Lords as an institution, apart from the House of Commons, has some recognition in that regard?

Lord McDonald:

I think it does, but I also think it has problems. I think, John, we're way too big and the ways people get into this place are obscure.

Lord Speaker:

You've asked for less political honours.

Lord McDonald:

Yeah, I think there are too many political place people in the House of Lords. I'm part of the Crossbenchers think. The Crossbenchers are part of what is unique about the House of Lords. And the people with many different professional backgrounds focusing on their area of professional expertise, but prepare to range more widely, offer a great deal to the work of this House.

Lord Speaker:

And what would your message be to people in the country about the House of Lords, that the utility of it, and particularly to young people? You mentioned you went to university, you left without having to pay a penny. There's young people today that probably never got a house, aren't able to buy a house at the same age as you were and I was as well. So young people seem to have lost out. How can we give some measure of hope there?

Lord McDonald:

I think British public service is part of what defines our country and helps us through crisis. And I think it is a fact that in this House there are a group of people who are here to help, to help other people, not to help themselves. They are here to bring their expertise to bear. They're here to listen to other people. They are here to gather evidence before they make up their minds. And I think those are solid attributes of public service.

I would invite young people not just to look at the trappings. I mean there's a lot of red and gold in our House, but read the words that are spoken rather than watch the pictures to understand the meat of what happens here.

Lord Speaker:

Well, Simon, thank you very much for your contribution. It's been fascinating to get that insight, diplomatic. And also your views in the number of areas which I never thought you had as a diplomat, but there you are. Thanks very much for your contribution. It's been a delight.

Lord McDonald:

Thank you, John. One thing I've learned in the House of Lords is that Lords are opinionated, so I'm glad to share my opinions. [laughter]

Lord Speaker:

Absolutely.

In this episode

Lord McDonald shares his views on a range of current international issues from President Trump and Greenland to the Chagos Islands and British soft power, plus changes to the global approach of the USA, China and Russia:

‘For most of my career, the reasons why the institutions of the late 1940s were fraying were because Russia and then China were not particularly happy with that post Second World War settlement. The surprise in recent years is the United States being a revisionist power, not liking the bill paid by the United States to underpin that settlement.’

Lord McDonald was previously Head of the Diplomatic Service, the most senior civil servant in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and has served as Ambassador to Israel and to Germany. In this episode, he speaks to Lord McFall about what drew him to public service both in the Foreign Office and the House of Lords:

‘I think British public service is part of what defines our country and helps us through crisis. And I think it is a fact that in this House there are a group of people who are here to help, to help other people, not to help themselves. They are here to bring their expertise to bear. They're here to listen to other people. They are here to gather evidence before they make up their minds. And I think those are solid attributes of public service.’

Lord McDonald also talks about the role of the Civil Service and ministers, plus the challenges of planning for successive governments:

‘One reason why our projects across the board are worse than, say, similar projects in Japan or China or even France, is our planning regime, that every single road, bridge, railway has to go through a very protracted planning legal procedure. Every government I've worked for identified our planning laws as an obstacle, and every government so far has failed really to grip it. I note that the new Labour government is gearing up to attempt. I hope they succeed. But I note that every previous effort has failed.’

Listen now

Other episodes

Transcript

Lord Speaker:

Lord McDonald. Simon, welcome to the podcast. Delighted to have you along. Maybe I can start with your early life. You were born in Salford in 1961. Tell us about your upbringing.

Lord McDonald:

Thank you, John. I have been thinking a lot about my early life recently, partly when I had to choose a title, I realised that what was at the beginning meant an awful lot to me. And second, because my mum died on Christmas Day, and so we've just had the funeral and I've just seen my Salford family. We don't get together very often these days, but getting together reminded me of the values of my childhood. It was a Roman Catholic childhood. The church was very big in our lives. My dad was a pillar of the local community. My grandfather was a well-known businessman, and the things that they cared about, I realise I still care about now. So leaving things better than you found them, doing your best, helping other people. Yeah, looking back, they have kind of guided me throughout my life.

But the other importance of Salford for my career and for what I'm doing now is that when I was a child in the 1970s, it was utterly miserable. Everything had closed, everything was derelict. It was grey and grimy. All the coal mines had gone, but the soot was still there on every brick. As I got older and went to university, it was a real surprise to me that our country was as big in the world as it still was because my personal experience had been of decline. And that's important too because, I think, even though we are still a great country and we can do great things in the world, we are clearly not the country we used to be. And how that is factored into our politics and policymaking fascinates me.

Lord Speaker:

You went to university. Tell us, you must've been a bright character, you ended up…

Lord McDonald:

I went to Cambridge and very few people from my school in Salford had been to Cambridge. Indeed, the headmaster disapproved of Oxbridge because he thought they were elitist. But I had a great history teacher and he said, "Ignore Brother Hilary, apply." So I applied to Pembroke to read law, partly because as a 17-year-old I thought the only two degrees that people did were medicine or law, and I was not going to be a doctor. I've always been squeamish and I remain squeamish. So I put myself down for law. Within three days of arriving, I realised that wasn't for me. So from day five, I was a historian and I remain a historian.

Lord Speaker:

And what was your period of study?

Lord McDonald:

Well, because it was Cambridge, we could do anything. The only rule was that in both part one and part two, you had to have at least one paper either side of the year, 1715, the death of Louis XIV. So I did a lot of American history, I did a lot of colonial history, I did the arms race before the First World War. Those three papers really stayed with me to this day.

Lord Speaker:

And at 21, a very early age, when you come out of university, you went straight into the Foreign Office. What guided you towards public service? You mentioned your roots. Was that part of it and was it your studying history, given the global view you had of it, did that encourage you to go for the Foreign Office?

Lord McDonald:

Absolutely. I’m a product of Beveridge and Butler, I left university without one pound of debt. I owed all my start in life to the British state. My parents didn't have to pay either. So giving back, contributing to the country that made me appealed very strongly.

Lord Speaker:

And what you've seen in your diplomatic career, you've been posted so many places in Europe and Asia and North America and in the Middle East. Indeed, I think you were the ambassador in Israel for a period as well. Can you give us a flavour of your experience and the...

Lord McDonald:

Well, one thing that strongly appealed about the Foreign Office as a career was it seemed to me even as a teenager that the longer you kept at it, the more interesting the work became. And that was absolutely the case.

And second, that the work had immense variety. So as you've been describing, I've worked in many countries and dealt with many issues and I finished up as Permanent Secretary, so the head of the diplomatic service. And in that job I visited 123 different countries and territories. So I've seen the whole world in my career, and there's nothing like seeing things for reinforcing important messages. So I see the fragility of international institutions. I see the fragility of the natural environment we live in. I have seen the desperation of conflict, but also the resilience of human beings and their ability even in dire circumstances to imagine things better and make them better.

Lord Speaker:

You mentioned Butskellism there and the post-war accord with global institutions, is that fraying, is it gone and is there a new paradigm that we have to adopt in the present world?

Lord McDonald:

It's not gone, but it sure as hell is fraying. And there are many reasons over many years. And for most of my career, the reasons why the institutions of the late 1940s were fraying were because Russia and then China were not particularly happy with that post Second World War settlement. The surprise in recent years is the United States being a revisionist power, not liking the bill paid by the United States to underpin that settlement. That's been there in the background for some time, but it's rushed into the foreground with President Trump, particularly in his new second term.

Lord Speaker:

Right. Before we go on to that, you were the ambassador in Israel, as I mentioned, from 2003 to 2006, and you have spoken against Britain's long-term presence in the Middle East. Give us your experience as ambassador and your views and how we should approach the Middle East.

Lord McDonald:

With modesty. I think we have a role, we absolutely have a role because we have a responsibility. We helped create many of the problems that beset the region today. Many times it wasn't a conscious creation. They weren't wicked people who are our predecessors, but with inadequate knowledge of what they were facing, they made things worse.

So that being the case, I think we have a continuing responsibility. We have continuing knowledge and expertise. I think the UK's is one of the few diplomatic services that habitually posts Arabic speakers to be ambassadors across the Arabic-speaking world. Our ambassador in Israel is a fluent Hebrew speaker. So we have real expertise and I think, crucially, we can, when we're doing it right, present ourselves as a neutral player, as a player that is not taking sides, that can work with everybody. And so try to advance the general interest rather than a specific national interest. But given there are so many factors and so many players, this is necessarily a smaller role than we had in the past and it's necessarily a role we do in partnership with others.

Lord Speaker:

A two-state solution, that's the aspiration. Given your practical experience, how far away is that, if it's at all possible?

Lord McDonald:

Right now, it seems very far away, but I also believe, deeply believe that it's the only way forward that will work for the majority on both sides. Israel clearly is the more powerful player. After the horrific catastrophe of the 7th of October 2023, Israel came back strongly. Israel has militarily defeated Hamas, it has defeated Hezbollah and it has clipped Iran's wings in its - Israel's - neighbourhood.

So Israel is clearly a strong, you could say, sovereign player. Israel is able to make the weather, but it is at a great cost. Israel is mobilised. Israel is on a constant war footing and Israel can only maintain the status quo, I believe by becoming a garrison state, which I do not think was the vision of its founding fathers. I do not think it's what most Israelis want for themselves. So the alternative to that is a negotiation with the Palestinians acknowledging the legitimacy of their political cause, sharing the land and making peace.

Lord Speaker:

You mentioned the fragility of the world, and if we could combine that with your presence in the Middle East and that, we'll look at Afghanistan, we'll look at Iraq. Is that the issue that is in your mind when you talk about fragility?

Lord McDonald:

Yes. And wider than that, John. I mean you've mentioned the conflicts, which are most in the news, but across Sub-Saharan Africa, there are wars raging, which are not really reported in the UK. The one that gets closest to being reported is in Sudan. But across the Sahel in West Africa, there are a string of conflicts which are blighting the local life and which Europeans don't really know about, so don't really care about.

Lord Speaker:

You briefly mentioned the Trump administration, the coming of the second administration. Give us your views on that.

Lord McDonald:

It's very important and very interesting, and a third opening thought is it's very different even from the first Trump administration. I was PUS [Permanent Under-Secretary] in the Foreign Office in January 2017 when he came in the first time, and he, I think, was quite bemused by his new job. He decided to run almost on a whim. There wasn't a great lead up, there wasn't a lifelong plan. He said that he took the decision three days before the announcement. So this was something that was done last minute, seat of the pants, with a very small team and a pretty unclear agenda.

So when he became President, he was very obviously feeling his way forward. One way that was demonstrated was how he assembled his team in the first administration, which was largely of people he did not know. So who were recommended by senior figures in the Republican Party. Two consequences of that were that there was a lot of falling out within the first administration and a lot of resignations. Second time around with the gap of four years, he is much clearer in his own mind what he wants to do. The first week has been absolutely frenetic.

And the team around him is uber loyal to himself and he is getting that team confirmed. As far as I can see, only one of his nominations has fallen by the wayside: Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General. The rest will be in place in the next fortnight and they will do his bidding

Lord Speaker:

As a diplomat, no doubt you'll have in your mind, Greenland and the Chagos Archipelago.

Lord McDonald:

Indeed. Well, Greenland is one of the most interesting diplomatic initiatives the President has taken early days. I remember election night back in November, not all that long ago, and everybody was saying, "Yeah, yeah, this is going to be a rocky ride. Expect the unexpected. You never know what will come up." And even though we had that mindset, nobody saw the Greenland initiative coming, which I think is kind of interesting.

Second is that the reaction internationally has been of horror. I think that's the wrong reaction. I can understand shock because this has come out of a clear blue sky, but when you look at the detail, it has a certain internal logic, and very specifically between the United States and Denmark.

So the United States for the last 250 years has been growing its territory often, even usually, by purchase. The biggest such purchase, which everyone remembers, was the Alaska purchase from Tsarist Russia in 1867. But there were others that followed, including most recently in 1917, what is now the US Virgin Islands from Denmark. Until 1917, they had been the Danish West Indies. So there is a history of both purchasing territory and involving Denmark. Even with Greenland, there is history because after the Second World War, the Truman administration made an offer of 100 million in gold bullion for Greenland. And it was seen off. Nothing came of it, but it has a history and I think that is important to remember.

Next thing to remember is the changed strategic position of the High North. Greenland is the biggest island in the world and has a critical position in the Arctic. Denmark frankly is under-equipped to carry out the task on behalf of the west for keeping the Arctic open to our interests. As a Nato ally of course, that helps, but by itself it is underpowered.

Third, a huge issue is the views of the Greenlanders. The Greenlanders have not been happy with their position in the greater kingdom of Denmark for a long time. Everybody is reacting on their behalf at the moment, but I think their views need to be taken into consideration and their views may surprise people. It may be that the idea of being a citizen of the United States with the ability to work anywhere in the United States could strongly appeal to people whose economic options right now are very limited.

The last thing, which is a more general saying and something which has puzzled me through my career is the power of small numbers. As I say, Greenland is the biggest island in the world. Only 56,000 people live there. That group cannot in any serious way look after themselves. So even though I think we should listen to them, the idea that their views are the end of the story, I just don't buy. Because any group which doesn't have the resources to look after itself needs to be respectful of the groups that are going to do it on their behalf. And at the moment, the United States is coming forward offering to fulfil that role. So although the proposition is a shock, I don't think it's outrageous.

Lord Speaker:

So the strategic case for the US acquiring Greenland is quite important.

Lord McDonald:

Is stronger than the knee-jerk reaction likes to concede. But of course, John, it's way more difficult even than my summary, which was attempted to be comprehensive. But the more I read, the more complicated it becomes. And another fact which has not given much airplay is that there is an existing agreement between the United States and Denmark about the stationing of US troops in Greenland. They have the rights, they have had it for I believe more than 50 years to station up to 15,000 US military in Greenland. At the moment, they choose not to exercise that. So if it is the military vulnerability that is at the bottom of this, there is an existing mechanism to address that.

So I think my basic points are it's more interesting and less outrageous than first appears. And what should happen next is a negotiation.

Lord Speaker:

The Chagos Archipelago?

Lord McDonald:

Well, the Chagos is very, very important to us, more important to the UK directly than Greenland because it is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). We were the main colonial power in the Indian Ocean until we left in the '60s and '70s. At that time, a deal was done to detach the Chagos Archipelago from the newly independent Mauritius to keep it. And we did that because the US was very interested in having a base. We talk always about Diego Garcia as a joint base between the UK and US, but the truth is it's overwhelmingly American. We are there because the Americans consider that base their most valuable real estate outside the United States. So it is very important because it gives them sight of the world that they can't see from the continental US.

In this complicated history, we did some things which were against conventions in the 1960s. It was one of the rules of decolonization that colonies should not be split up by the decolonizing power. But BIOT was already always an exception because it was a group of islands across a whole ocean that were put together for British administrative convenience. And when we were considering, with the local residents, independence, we immediately agreed that Seychelles and Maldives shouldn't be lumped together with Mauritius.

So there was a split right at the beginning. But Chagos, according to the rules, should always have been with Mauritius. Over many, many years, this sort of rumbled away in the background, but in the last decade it flared up. Now I was PUS in the Foreign Office at the time, and there was a long discussion about whether we should play along with a process at the International Court of Justice. And we succeeded in deferring or deflecting that for quite a long time, but in the end we decided to engage. And I think that is a crucial fact. But once you have decided to engage in a legal process, you can't then walk away from it when you don't like the result. And that is part of the commentary right now.

Lord Speaker:

How long have we been engaging in that?

Lord McDonald:

Well, the court case was in 2019 and the sort of delay tactics were many years before that. And when it got to the ICJ, okay, it's an advisory opinion, but in that opinion, I think 14 judges opined, and 13 of them were against the UK. So we had only the Americans supporting it. So this was a very strong signal. So now we are trying to comply with the terms of that advisory opinion, which is to return sovereignty to Mauritius, while at the same time preserving our essential strategic interest and the essential strategic interest of the United States.

Everything I've seen about the deal on the table achieves those two objectives. But there's a lot of criticism including in the House of Lords about how the UK government is behaving. But I think it overlooks three crucial things. One is that although the opinion is advisory, that is not the end of the legal story. And if we just set it to one side, other processes are available, and we have no reason to think they would end up more favourably than the first one.

Second, the objection we shouldn't have been involved in the first place. There was a specific cutout when the International Court of Justice was set up, which said that the United Kingdom would not have to deal with its Commonwealth partners in that court. Yet that was way back then, but having engaged, again, we have to accept the results of a process we have taken part in.

And third, the agreement on the table protects our interests. Many people claim that this is opening the door to China whilst giving no evidence that it's opening the door to China. It is a fact that of the 55, I think, members of the African Union, only Mauritius and Eswatini are not part of the Chinese Belt and Road initiative. So Mauritius' orientation is much more pro-Indian than pro-China. And in this agreement we secure the Western interest for at least 99 years, and in diplomacy, 99 years is a long time.

Lord Speaker:

A long time. Again, you alluded to our position with soft power. Has that diminished over the years or do we still have considerable soft power? And in relation to America, what advice would you give the new ambassador to America, our ambassador, if he would take it?

Lord McDonald:

Also a member of this House. I think the UK has immense soft power, and one reason we have that power is that we also have hard power. And I think soft power without hard power doesn't take you all that far. So the mix is very important, but the soft element for the UK is particularly strong. And I have written about that. I call the elements the magnificent seven, and I'll give you just two of them.

The first, I always start with the judiciary. The United Kingdom's judiciary and legal system, I think has the strongest reputation around the world. And the proof of that is the rest of the world comes to London for arbitration, for binding arbitration. So when a country has billions at stake, it trusts the British system and the people operating it to come up with a fair solution. That is immensely important to the UK.

The second thing, the second thing immensely important are British institutions. I think the monarchy is very important for the UK's image around the world. The fact that ultimate loyalty is vested in an institution which is not active in everyday politics is very helpful to the whole of the UK system. The fact that the individuals are of such clear personal probity I think is very important to the UK. And I think it helps that they're trained from this from birth. I don't think it's an accident that the late Queen and King Charles have such a high reputation. But also the institutions include this place, Parliament and my first career, the Civil Service.

It's not that they are perfect, they are very clearly imperfect institutions, but they recognise that. We're always trying to improve. We are very, very severe with those who break either the formal rules or the informal codes in these institutions. So this essential selflessness that members of Parliament in the Commons and the Lords, Civil Service.

Lord Speaker:

Peter Hennessy's Good Chaps theory.

Lord McDonald:

Yes, I have a lot of time. I think the people peopling these institutions are trying to help the public good rather than trying to help themselves. And in many countries I have visited, that key requirement of public service is not as clear.

Lord Speaker:

And your advice to the new ambassador?

Lord McDonald:

Ah, sorry.

Lord Speaker:

Were you dodging that?

Lord McDonald:

No, no, no. I'm not dodging that. [laughter] I briefly forgot John. Peter Mandelson is a very interesting choice. One thing that he has, which frankly no professional diplomat can match is media experience. He knows how to handle himself in front of a microphone. He's been doing it all his adult life. And I think the media aspects of the job of the next ambassador are going to be very important to his success. The President absorbs a lot of views and opinions via Fox News. So the new ambassador has to be a regular guest on Fox News, and someone with a profile and facility of Peter Mandelson, I think, can be that regular guest.

Second, Peter Mandelson has proper trade experience and although-

Lord Speaker:

EU Commissioner for trade.

Lord McDonald:

He was EU Commissioner. And although getting a trade deal for the United Kingdom will be really, really difficult, there are so many vested interests in the United States that have to be squared. Having someone who's a genuine expert I think puts us ahead of the game and will help with his credibility in the key parts of his job.

And the third thing which he conspicuously has, which I think is very important for the British ambassador to the United States, is he has very strong personal links into 10 Downing Street. Of course formally speaking, our representatives are of the King, but in practise, they're representing the government. And in one or two particular posts that link into the Prime Minister's office is very important. And Peter Mandelson has that.

We've been talking about the consequences internationally, which are huge, but even bigger are the consequences for the United States internally-

But within the United States, yes, the Presidents have traditionally been unifying figures. They've even talked about healing. This President is not about either of those things. He is about looking after his own. And we have an example even in the first week, because of the wildfires raging in California, there is a need for assistance. Usually FEMA comes forward and usually FEMA's assistance is decided by need. President Trump is attaching conditions to that aid. That is new and I'm pretty sure disagreeable for the citizens of California. So that sort of wedge driving will have big consequences for his country.

Lord Speaker:

Well, Civil Service. There's been criticism of the Civil Service, it has been too slow to react and the type of environment we face today and the challenges ahead of us nationally, we've got to have a different approach. There's been a view they've been generalists, also that civil servants experienced a particular department, are there on a particular project for 6 or 12 months, they move on, and there isn't the continuity and the skillset for that. Do you see any merit in that criticism?

Lord McDonald:

Some merit, but I think it misses the point of the Civil Service. For me, the Civil Service is one of the institutions which defines the United Kingdom and its key features are that it is permanent, it is impartial, and it is expert.

Now there's a lot of focus on the expert bit at the moment thinking that generalists are not good enough for the task at hand. My counter to that is that the task at hand keeps changing. So what we need are good people who with agility and enthusiasm, skill up to the new tasks. When you have a relatively small department like the Foreign Office was, that was the only way through. I could not have run the department if everybody was very specialised because specialisms become obsolete surprisingly quickly. Instead, I had people who were willing and able to get their head around new tasks.

Again, for me, one of a key example was during the coronavirus pandemic, we had no experience at procuring PPE. It just wasn't part of our knowledge before this struck. And I would say, so what? What counted was that people across the network rapidly acquired those skills and delivered for the United Kingdom. So the key contributions of the Foreign Office during the pandemic were helping the government access PPE, especially in China and getting Brits home. So there are the continuing things and the consular duty is a continuing key core function of the Foreign Office. So that combination of doing core business and adapting to the new agenda is I think a robust model for the whole Civil Service.

Lord Speaker:

Even in general, the Civil Service in the future, take for example, infrastructure projects. I think we could say over the past, what, 40 years or so, there's been a litany of disasters in terms of that. Now, maybe unfairly the Civil Service get the blame for that and we should have a different mindset to it. So how can the Civil Service respond with agility?

Lord McDonald:

Well, I mean, John, the most notorious of those infrastructure projects was HS2 and-

Lord Speaker:

Yeah, but it goes way back.

Lord McDonald:

... I thought it was a mistake myself from the get-go.

Lord Speaker:

But it goes away back. There's quite a litany.

Lord McDonald:

It's true. But that is the most recent one that went agley. But as I say, I think the idea as a Northerner that the finest thing to happen to a Northerner is to have a quicker way to get south is not the way forward. It felt to me that after the pandemic, that helping people work at home, giving people a fulfilling life close to where they're born is the better way forward.

So extra capacity from the north to the south feels to me missing what our country actually needs. I acknowledge that this is a minority view, John. One reason why our projects across the board are worse than, say, similar projects in Japan or China or even France, is our planning regime, that every single road, bridge, railway has to go through a very protracted planning legal procedure. Every government I've worked for identified our planning laws as an obstacle, and every government so far has failed really to grip it. I note that the new Labour government is gearing up to attempt. I hope they succeed. But I note that every previous effort has failed.

Lord Speaker:

You’ve got 20 departments, say, government departments, 5 ministers in each department, 100 ministers. You've got a Cabinet that meets, say, for a couple of hours a day. Is that the best way to go about business?

Lord McDonald:

I think the 19th century model has a lot to commend it, and in the 19th century model, we had relatively fewer ministries. So with clearer responsibilities that didn't overlap so much. I think that's a good way to organise things.

The other key part of the old model was the prime minister being primus inter pares. That held the ring where there was a dispute between ministers. Then the prime minister was available, set overall direction after agreement in cabinet. But let secretaries of state get on with the job. That allowing secretaries of state to get on with the job has been distinctly missing from the British system for at least 25 years. The centre wants not only to know what's going on, it wants to control what's going on everywhere.

So I think reconnecting with that older British tradition of secretaries of state being empowered, staying in their job for a longer period, and the Prime Minister checking in once a year or whatever, to make sure that things are progressing as agreed, would serve us better than having number 10 hyperactive trying to take every single decision no matter how small or no matter how quickly it needs to be taken.

Lord Speaker:

Very interesting. That point of view because-

Lord McDonald:

Yeah, no, prime ministers tend to disagree with that. I was thinking of that point of view, Alastair Campbell I think disagreed with that point of view. But I think there has been a lot of, not exactly infantilizing but disempowering of secretaries of state. I absolutely agree we have too many junior ministers. I remember an Economist article years ago saying that the UK had one quarter of the world's junior ministers. That is going it.

Again, it goes back to our history. It's a lot to do with patronage, that if someone is drawing a salary from you, they're more loyal to you. But I think efficiency would suggest that fewer ministers would serve the government better.

Lord Speaker:

And you've been in the House of Lords since 2021. What advice would you give us given the House of Lords is normally under the hammer in terms of being more acceptable to people as an institution?

Lord McDonald:

Of course it's a great institution, but it is kind of weird. When you come in, the traditions don't immediately make sense, but you work them out and all of them have a justification. To boiling down my thoughts, I think that the House of Lords should focus on what it does best and drop some of the rest.

Lord Speaker:

And what's that?

Lord McDonald:

So what we do, I think two things we do really very well. The first is revision and improvement of legislation. Legislation is always drafted in a hurry. The Commons basically has given up scrutiny to any depth. So the only place in the British system where that essential scrutiny and improvement happens is in the House of Lords. You have hardworking people, expert people, well-meaning people who I think improve, really do improve the laws of the land. And it strikes me every time legislation is finally approved and there are gracious speeches between the front benches. The government always acknowledges that the House has helped, even when they weren't particularly happy that it delayed things. They see that in the end, having that careful working through of the consequences is worth it. So that's one.

The second thing I think we do really well are the more general debates about the big issues in our society. So I think the single most interesting debate I've taken part in that I listened, I was a new peer, so I didn't put my name down, I listened the whole day was about assisted dying. It was very thoughtful, it was comprehensive, it was profound, and I think it helped move the national debate. I think the Leadbeater legislation derives in part from the serious debates in this House.

Lord Speaker:

Soft power, we mentioned that previously. Do you feel the House of Lords as an institution, apart from the House of Commons, has some recognition in that regard?

Lord McDonald:

I think it does, but I also think it has problems. I think, John, we're way too big and the ways people get into this place are obscure.

Lord Speaker:

You've asked for less political honours.

Lord McDonald:

Yeah, I think there are too many political place people in the House of Lords. I'm part of the Crossbenchers think. The Crossbenchers are part of what is unique about the House of Lords. And the people with many different professional backgrounds focusing on their area of professional expertise, but prepare to range more widely, offer a great deal to the work of this House.

Lord Speaker:

And what would your message be to people in the country about the House of Lords, that the utility of it, and particularly to young people? You mentioned you went to university, you left without having to pay a penny. There's young people today that probably never got a house, aren't able to buy a house at the same age as you were and I was as well. So young people seem to have lost out. How can we give some measure of hope there?

Lord McDonald:

I think British public service is part of what defines our country and helps us through crisis. And I think it is a fact that in this House there are a group of people who are here to help, to help other people, not to help themselves. They are here to bring their expertise to bear. They're here to listen to other people. They are here to gather evidence before they make up their minds. And I think those are solid attributes of public service.

I would invite young people not just to look at the trappings. I mean there's a lot of red and gold in our House, but read the words that are spoken rather than watch the pictures to understand the meat of what happens here.

Lord Speaker:

Well, Simon, thank you very much for your contribution. It's been fascinating to get that insight, diplomatic. And also your views in the number of areas which I never thought you had as a diplomat, but there you are. Thanks very much for your contribution. It's been a delight.

Lord McDonald:

Thank you, John. One thing I've learned in the House of Lords is that Lords are opinionated, so I'm glad to share my opinions. [laughter]

Lord Speaker:

Absolutely.

Related news