Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, much of this Bill is welcome, but my focus will be only on pavement licences. Some noble Lords have raised the question of alcohol and we have already seen the challenges in urban areas of people even spilling out on to roads and thus endangering themselves and others. I want to take up the issue of smoking in these new spill-out areas, and I thank ASH for its assistance on this. The noble Earl will be extremely familiar with the vital steps taken over the years to reduce the incidence of smoking and smoke-related harms; indeed, he helped in that process. I am glad that last summer the Government announced plans for England to be smoke-free by 2030. They committed to bring forward proposals on this, but a year has passed with no such proposals. The Bill will allow the Government to show that they intend to deliver on that major public health goal.

We know how transformative it has been to have banned smoking in public places. It now seems very unpleasant and strange when we find ourselves in smoky places. Lives are being saved, especially among those who had to work in those environments. However, the ban on smoking inside public places has displaced smokers to using adjacent outdoor areas, which exposes passers-by and those going in, with staff as always worst affected. Encouragingly, people now do not like being exposed to tobacco smoke. When Greater Manchester surveyed its population, over 70% said that they wanted the areas immediately outside public buildings to be smoke-free. Pavement licences will exacerbate the problem as they are designed to make it easier for bars, restaurants and pubs to serve food and drink to customers on the pavement immediately outside their premises. While previously those wishing to avoid second-hand smoke could stay inside, remaining indoors is both more restricted and riskier because of the coronavirus. Clause 5(1) states that

“A pavement licence may be granted by a local authority subject to such conditions as it considers reasonable.”


Local authorities could therefore prohibit smoking on an ad-hoc basis, but so far councils have not taken that up, even in central London where the pavements are crowded and space is limited. For example, Liberal Democrat colleagues who support Westminster City Council’s plan for reopening Westminster’s hospitality sector have called on the council to make outside dining and drinking spaces no-smoking areas, but to no avail. They have launched a petition, which is what has alerted me to this issue. A number of local restaurants would like this provision, but they need the council to take a lead.

We know that smoke-free hospitality venues did not just happen. They required legislation which was supported by the hospitality trade because it set a level playing field. If smoking is not prohibited, these pavement areas will not be family-friendly spaces. Not only customers and staff but neighbouring premises, particularly in crammed urban areas, will be exposed to second-hand smoke. The Government should make smoke-free status a requirement for all pavement licences. It will be easy to do but, if they cannot take such a simple step forward, we will have to doubt their commitment to deliver a smoke-free England by 2030. I hope very much that the noble Earl will help us to take this forward.

House of Lords: Allowances

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I declare an interest as someone who receives and claims allowances. I am, I think, the only representative today of the usual channels, and I would like to make a few remarks about how this system will work. No one in their right mind wants to debate allowances—that is reflected in the attendance today—and nobody really wants to make arguments on the subject. I accept that the focus of our work must be on the crisis, how the country is affected health-wise and how we are to come through it job-wise. However, there must be an understanding in the House that many of us accept that there has to be some form of short-term response to protect the reputation of the House, but we should not support it if we think it will undermine our work, effectiveness and reputation in the longer term.

In the short term, as my colleague and noble friend Lord Newby pointed out, the halving of the allowances that we are talking about is not the case. It is more like a quartering. Few people will be able to make more than one intervention a week. If the commission also put out a press release emphasising the benefits of cost-savings, which I accept there were, it raises fears that this is a permanent solution and it will be politically difficult if we then have to put the costs up again.

Turning to my role in the usual channels, I shall tell the House a little about the difficulties of what will happen in the short term and why this must be a short-term solution. Too many Peers will have to intervene in Questions and debates and, more importantly, good people will stand aside to allow others who need the financial support to do so. They will not speak or ask questions when we most need them to do so. The Chief Whips—I am sorry to use this analogy, but 50 years ago I spent time in the London docks—are making me like a shop steward in the casual system who will determine who speaks, who deals with the rationing of questions and, effectively, who gets their income. I do not want that role, and nor should the House want the Whips to have that role.

In the short term, a number of Peers have contractual obligations with their rents. These are the people really committed to this place and who therefore do really good work; they provide for themselves to do that and take out contractual rental commitments. With this level of allowances—I remind everybody that the allowances are for expenses—I think most people who have those contractual arrangements, certainly those in my group, will not be able to meet them, probably through the summer, by the looks of things.

Thirdly, one in 10 of my group is supported by an intern or a member of staff paid for by my group. That means that 10 people’s jobs are uncertain at the moment, should this scheme go ahead in the long term. All those people contribute behind the scenes to the work of this House. We do not see them; they support us. They will face a lot of uncertainty and the Peers will have to make up their minds whether to give up their contractual obligations to those people. So do not think that it is just us who will be hit by this; there are also the staff who support us. That is on top of all the people paid for by the various state funds, do not let us forget that.

What I am really saying to the House is that the commission needs to show leadership—I would have done. I think I behaved in this way in any organisation that I ran as a manager: if I cut people’s wages or made people redundant, I cut my wages. I did not take a wage increase or a bonus. That should flow across our organisation, if we are to provide leadership in the short term.

This scheme cannot last in the medium term; it is a short-term response. I accept that, so let us make it so. Therefore, in the short term—we do not want to wait until 29 June to do this; we need to start now—we need to define what work in the House means, because it does not mean just intervening in the Chamber, so that we can introduce a new revised scheme when we have the hybrid Parliament working in June and onwards. It is sadly not acceptable that we should settle our own allowances and money—the Commons has come to realise this—so we need an independent review, which will take a bit longer. That is why we need a short-term solution after this scheme is approved today. We need something longer-term, to be looked at independently and outside.

That is the advice I give this House. Obviously, we accept that we have to do something in the short term, but it would be very unfair on the effectiveness of this House and its Members if this is seen as anything other than a short-term, temporary scheme.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

I, too, am speaking in favour of my noble friend Lord Alderdice’s amendment. Having come through the virus, I am able to be here and am glad to have the opportunity. Many of my colleagues, of course, cannot be here.

The United Kingdom is going through an extraordinary crisis and the Government have much that they must tackle. This is a global crisis with huge implications. As the noble Baroness will know, over 200 Members of the House that she leads have written to the Lord Speaker, making the point that it is our duty as Members of the House of Lords both to help the Government and hold them to account. Given the gravity of this crisis, we need urgently at least to return to our normal sitting pattern. We rightly allowed the Commons to be prioritised in setting up hybrid procedures. Now that it has been done, the same must urgently happen here. As the letter says, the implications of the pandemic are huge. There are issues of health and safety, economic damage, civil liberties and human rights, and many aspects of each. There is so much to cover. Just yesterday, the Lords examined the financial stability report, which had passed unseen by the Commons because it had not even been published when they waved it through.

Internationally, some Governments and others seem to be taking advantage of the cover of coronavirus. It is our responsibility to make sure that a spotlight is shone there too, given that the United Kingdom aspires to global leadership and is a member of the UN Security Council. Therefore, there is more for us to do, not less, so all effort must be put into the Lords returning as the second and scrutinising part of Parliament, and impediment must not be placed in the way of that. However, it has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and my noble friends Lord Stoneham, Lord Newby and Lord Alderdice have made plain.

I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said about a ministerial pension. I was an unpaid Minister through most of the coalition. The Government Chief Whip said at the time that none of us would lose out. Clearly, we need a sunset clause for this proposal, which assumes that we will be working less, not more. If this proposal is to go through, clearly the salaried members of the commission must show leadership by voluntarily taking a pay cut, not to 80% but along the lines that will result from this proposal. The sooner we at least move back to our usual days and hours in this crisis, the better.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is quite clear from the comments we have heard already that we indeed live in extraordinary times for our country. Indeed, I do not recall ever speaking to such an empty Chamber. That is not because I am a brilliant speaker whom everyone floods in to listen to; it is because Members take their responsibilities seriously and are in the Chamber to take part in the work that we do.

On the very day it was announced that the number of deaths in the UK from coronavirus is now the highest in Europe, we also got more information on the alarming number of deaths in social care situations. It is very sobering for us to be here today talking about the issues before us. What is happening across the world brings enormous responsibilities not only for the Government but for the opposition parties. Parliament also has responsibilities—to ensure that those on the front line have the equipment, the protection and the support that they need, and that those trying to manage their lives through this crisis and beyond know that they have all the support and information which government and society should provide for them.

The Government decide the Order of Business. I am sorry that the first item up today was allowances. It has been reflected in the speeches that we have heard. Not one person has talked about the allowances without talking about how the House operates. My noble friend Lord Adonis has some amendments on this later, but he touched on it when he spoke earlier. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, when moving his Motion, spoke about how the House operates and our responsibilities. I would prefer the allowances Motion to be much further down the agenda. I hope that the Minister can take that back and discuss it with the usual channels. It was not the most important item before us today. Having said that, it is important, and has caused a lot of discussion.

I will speak briefly on some of the other issues, but on the issue of allowances the Minister’s comments about the difficulties in reaching this compromise Motion before us reflect the inadequacies of the current system of allowances that we have heard about from others. Those deficiencies cannot be corrected in a Motion during a crisis. The existing system and the new system being proposed also reflect the perception of Parliament. Both are predicated on being physically or virtually in the Chamber, and now we have the added criterion, which the Minister supports, that at Oral Questions, even if someone is on the list to speak, they have to be engaged in listening at least 30 minutes beforehand. If somebody else speaks for too long and goes over—and I do not want to curtail Ministers from giving complete answers to questions—and do not get in, that is no longer deemed a participation, even though they are present in the virtual chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Yes, I am very happy to say so. One of the only other items on an agenda largely about coronavirus, in Cabinet and elsewhere, is that of parliamentary business. I am therefore able to give regular updates on the work of the Lords. I have been discussing with my Commons colleagues the work they are doing and how we can roll that out, and I am of course raising House of Lords’ issues on a regular basis within government; that is my job and that is what I do.

[Baroness Northover]

Will the noble Baroness show the leadership that one would expect of the Leader of the House and halve her salary also?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am not going to make a commitment to do that now, but I will certainly reflect on it.

Business of the House

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that we substitute “five” for “three”—that is, we have five hours for the debate this afternoon, not three. I was very much hoping that the Leader of the House might accept this amendment; if she is willing to accept it, I do not need to proceed further. I see that she is shaking her head, so in that case, I need to detain the House for longer.

This afternoon, we are faced with a situation for the first time. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said he has been in the House for a quarter of a century—he does not look any the worse for it, if I may say so. I am a spring chicken: I have been here for only 15 years. However, this is the first debate in which I have sought to participate in the House—it may be the first time this has happened in the history of the House, apart from at Oral Questions when of course not everyone can get in—when noble Lords who have wished to speak in the debate are not being allowed to do so.

Because of the need to reconcile the Virtual Proceedings with the number of people who wish to speak and the three-hour time limit, which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has arbitrarily imposed, many noble Lords are being told that they cannot speak in the debate. I am one of the fortunate ones who—I am not quite sure by what procedure—my noble friend the Labour Chief Whip has chosen to allow to speak rather than many of my noble friends who are not allowed. It is completely unacceptable that noble Lords should not be able to fulfil their parliamentary duties and speak in a debate.

The debate in question is that tabled by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, calling attention to the impact of the coronavirus crisis on poverty and disadvantage. That goes to the heart of the crisis that the country is undergoing at the moment. If we have any role at all, it is to debate such issues and to bring them to the attention of the House. The House is meeting only in a part-time capacity at the moment anyway. So far as I am aware, there is no reason whatever why the proceedings today cannot last for five rather than three hours. If they lasted for five hours, all noble Lords who wished to speak would be able to do so, there would be full consideration of the issues and we would be performing our duties properly. Instead, the noble Baroness the Leader is arbitrarily cutting the proceedings of the House and not allowing noble Lords to take part.

If the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept my amendment, she will find that we routinely object, and, as soon as we are able, we might start voting on the time limits for debates—something that has never happened in the history of the House. She needs to understand that this House works through give and take, and one element of that is that noble Lords are able to make their contributions. That is the whole basis and understanding on which the usual channels have worked. If, through force majeure on the part of the Government, which is what the noble Baroness is proposing at the moment, noble Lords are not able to make their contributions, the understandings on which the business of this House is conducted will break down. Indeed, they are breaking down at the moment. I can tell the noble Baroness that, from discussions I have had with other noble Lords, that is happening, because noble Lords are being told that they are not allowed to speak in a debate this afternoon. As I said, that has never happened before.

I am very sorry that the noble Baroness is not prepared to accept this amendment. It seems to be perfectly reasonable. Any ordinary member of the public looking at this debate would find it incomprehensible that we are not able to debate the Motion in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York on the impact of Covid-19 on poverty for five rather than three hours in order to give it fuller consideration. The noble Baroness has not offered a single good reason why we cannot do so. If she persists in imposing this arbitrary time limit on the House, I give her notice that in future I will seek to amend all the Motions relating to the time limits for business of the House to provide for more time. There will be a growing head of steam on this issue across the House and, as soon as we are able to vote, the Government might find that they lose control of the procedures of the House entirely. That will not be in the best interests of the Government or maybe even the House as a whole. I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. The noble Baroness shakes her head but I too wished to speak in the debate this afternoon and was intending to flag up the global impact. It will be enormously more challenging to meet the sustainable development goals after this pandemic. However, I withdrew from that debate because about 15 Liberal Democrats wished to speak. Therefore, I am an example of what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has said. It is incredibly important, globally, to address this issue and I regret that I cannot put that case this afternoon.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

Perhaps I may be of help. Obviously talks have been taking place in the usual channels. I understand that she cannot support what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is saying, but we are making every effort to end these time limits by widening opportunities in debates, extending our hours and sitting for an extra day. We are moving towards that and I wonder whether she would formally give that backing so that eventually we get back to the point where we do not have time limits or limits on the number of speakers who can take part.

Hong Kong Protests

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as I said earlier, I share the noble Lord’s deep concern about the situation. However, we must be clear that the situation is fluid. We do not yet know the precise circumstances of this incident. No formal statement from the Hong Kong police has yet been issued, and it goes without saying that the situation is fast moving. Having said that, I can assure the noble Lord that we are in regular contact with the Governments of Hong Kong and China. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Chief Executive of Hong Kong on 9 August. He was due to have a meeting with Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi at the United Nations last week. He was called back for reasons that I do not need to explain, so the meeting did not occur, but he expects to speak to him in the coming days.

As far as the British nationals of Hong Kong origin are concerned, we are clear that the best solution for Hong Kong and the British national overseas passport holders who live there is full respect for the rights and freedoms set out in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. That will be the basis of any actions going forward.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, it is clearly appalling that a protester has been shot while calling for their democratic rights. There is much that the People’s Republic of China might celebrate today—its 70th anniversary—not least pulling millions out of poverty. But does the noble Earl not agree that promises made on both sides at handover must be kept? Reform must be moved forward. Surely, in this instance, the need for the UK Government to request that the Hong Kong Government instigate an independent investigation into violence in Hong Kong has become paramount.

[Earl Howe]

One of the most concerning features of the current situation is the loss of trust between the Hong Kong people and the authorities there. That trust has to be rebuilt, and to do that the Hong Kong SAR Government should establish a robust, credible, independent investigation into events. We note that the Independent Police Complaints Council is carrying out an inquiry and we look forward to further details on its scope.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, with 190 of us speaking, there are about 23 of us for every line of this short Bill, but that shows how important the Bill is. There were powerful speeches yesterday, including from the noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown, who spoke at 12.07 last night. There was even unprecedented applause from the Public Gallery for my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham after her passionate defence of EU citizens living here. There have been brave and passionate speeches today, such as those from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. But, for me, the most moving speech yesterday was that of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who likened the debate to an elegy. The UK’s involvement in the European project might turn out to be, he said,

“a fine, if ultimately doomed, cause”.—[Official Report, 20/2/17; col. 74.]

We appear to be on course for much more than a Lord Patten Hong Kong moment.

In the UK, we rarely learned about the EU as a project for peace, even though in recent memory on our continent there have been conflicts in the Balkans, Northern Ireland and Cyprus, with freedoms brutally suppressed in eastern Europe. Nor was it often pointed out in the UK that almost half of our trade is with the EU. We look at the US and marvel at how it could possibly have elected Donald Trump. Round the world, including in the Commonwealth, I have found that people wonder at how we could have voted to leave the largest, wealthiest and strongest trading bloc in the world.

So how does this Bill chart our way forward in the light of the referendum result? There are indeed different routes, and I seek clarification in the Prime Minister’s speech. She prioritises controlling borders over our membership of the single market. She rejects the European Court of Justice, which adjudicates that single market, yet she wants the maximum,

“freest possible trade in goods and services”,

for British companies in the EU. She says that “we may wish to retain” elements for our strong industries—for example, the financial services and automotive industries. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, pointed out yesterday, we are not the only ones negotiating; there are 27 others. What will they make of the words “we may wish to retain”?

Recently, in Berlin, I spoke on a panel with two Brexiteers to German businesspeople. Like Merkel, to a person they said, “No cherry picking”, even if it damaged their immediate interests, lest the EU as a whole be undermined. Our Prime Minister agreed in France that she would not cherry pick. In which case, what then for the financial services and automotive industries? How does the UK prioritise sectors of its economy? What about the pharmaceutical industry or high-tech? What happens as our economy changes? Any privileged access for certain sectors must mean some kind of equivalence in regulation. Do we invent another ECJ? Theresa May wants us to have a customs agreement with the EU but does not want to be in the customs union. What would this mean, given our interconnected supply chains? What would be the threshold for it being possible to have deals elsewhere?

Our trade with the rest of the world has been growing, seemingly unhampered by our being in the EU. However, in 2015, India took only 1.4% of our goods and desires a trade agreement that prioritises freer access to the UK, and New Zealand took only 0.2% of our goods. Yes, we must redouble our efforts, but we must also recognise the significance of the EU market to us and our greater ability to secure good trade deals via the EU.

We understand that there will not be a hard border in Ireland, but how is that to work? Are we about to see people trafficking displaced from Calais to Ireland?

We gather that we will not be paying what are described as “vast amounts” to the EU. It is not mentioned that the net amount is under 1% of GNI.

We wish to maintain our lead in science and the universities, but we already see EU students looking to Canada rather than the UK. We hear that Oxford and Warwick are considering campuses in Paris so that they can access EU funds.

We are told that we will have no cliff edge but transitional arrangements. However, the Government also make it clear that we are willing to walk away. That means that risk remains.

The Prime Minister’s speech appeals to those who voted for Brexit and seeks to address the concerns of those who oppose it. The problem is whether the two strands are compatible at all. My noble friend Lord Marks described this as the biggest foreign policy mistake in decades, so let us look at our position in the world. Justin Trudeau apparently feels lonely on the world stage, and one can see why. The EU is still the champion of liberal democracies and the rule of law, though populist movements even now challenge that. Populism has achieved an extraordinary result in the USA. We see a revived Russia active on Europe’s borders, in Crimea and Ukraine, threatening the Baltic states. The global world order is shifting eastwards. By 2050, China will be the largest economy in the world, with India in second place and Indonesia in fourth. Being part of the EU gave us disproportionate impact in global affairs. We are all members of NATO and, with France, we serve as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We have indeed served as a bridge between the US and the EU; others will now become that bridge. The world is an unstable place and we must all be aware of populist, simplistic movements across our continent—not surprising in the wake of profound economic crisis.

This short Bill presages a long and complicated process. Parliament must be fully engaged, including meaningful votes at the end. If, at that end, we judge that what has been negotiated turns out not to be those sunlit uplands and is not in the interests of our now divided country, we must not be afraid to say so.

European Council

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords—

[Baroness Northover]

I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, and then the noble Lord, Lord Dykes.

[Lord Trimble]

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to say with regard to the proposed new bailout proposals that they affect only the eurozone and do not affect us, so there is no change in our position and no need to consider a referendum on the issue. However, it is probably worth pointing out that, with regard to the eurozone, the proposed changes would be very substantial indeed. The new proposals empower the EU to enforce strict conditionality, which the Wall Street Journal says today is bureaucrat-speak for telling a country what it must do on taxes, spending and economic policy as a price for being rescued. Those are very substantial changes.