Arrangement of Business
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Myners
I wish to be helpful to the House. It is also worth pointing out that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, was chairman of the British Bankers’ Association when these manipulations of the BBA’s LIBOR rate were taking place. It is reported that the executive of the BBA was aware that manipulation was taking place but took no action. How can this allow the noble Lord, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, to continue to be a credible adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on banking, a role that he seems to have taken over from the poor noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, for whom we all have a great affection?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I wish to apologise. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Foulkes for bringing these issues to the attention of the House. We have had a very worthwhile discussion but I wish to place on record my thanks to the government Chief Whip. As I understand it, it was at the Opposition’s request that the Statement was promptly at 4 pm, for the convenience of some Members of my Benches and of the whole House. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the Leader of the House when, in fact, I should be the one taking the blame.
Lord Strathclyde
I am very grateful for that. I have very broad shoulders on these things, but it demonstrates that I made yet another mistake in giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Myners, let everybody just remember what his role was in all this as a very senior Minister in the Treasury in the previous Government.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for making a Statement to your Lordships' House on the Government’s revised House of Lords Reform Bill, which has been introduced today in the other place and given a First Reading. I am grateful, too, for an advanced sight of the Statement. I thank the Leader and the government Chief Whip for offering to extend to 40 minutes the normal period for Back-Bench contributions to the debate today.
This country is facing enormous difficulties. We are in a double-dip recession; we have no economic growth; unemployment, especially youth unemployment, remains high. The Governor of the Bank of England did not mince his words yesterday when he spoke of the depth of the economic crisis. Further efforts will be made this week at the EU summit to try to resolve the eurozone crisis. We need jobs and we need growth; we need a change of economic strategy. Those are the country’s priorities and those are the Opposition’s priorities. What are the Government’s priorities? Apparently, they centre on further reform of your Lordships’ House. Not only is reform of your Lordships’ House not at the top of the priority list of the people of this country; it is not even at the bottom of the priority list. In fact, it is not on the list at all, because it is not a priority. Even the most positive polling figures suggest that less than a fifth of the people of this country regard further House of Lords reform as in any way urgent. Yet this is what this Government have placed at the heart of their legislative agenda; this is what the Government are focusing on today. Why are the Government making reform of your Lordships' House such a priority in the light of the economic challenges facing us?
We do not from these Benches say that constitutional reform is unimportant. From 1997 onwards in government, we brought forward a serious programme of constitutional reform, including major changes such as devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Constitutional reform, including further reform of the House of Lords, goes to important questions about how Britain is governed. We on these Benches did not seek a Bill on further reform of your Lordships' House to be included in the Government’s legislative programme, but it has been; it is there; and we as the Opposition must respond to it.
Labour’s commitment to a fully elected second Chamber was explicit in its manifesto at the last general election. Labour has a long commitment to reform and has enacted that commitment. We want to see reform, but we want to get that reform right. For the Labour Party, that means a fully elected second Chamber. It means getting the powers and role of the House of Lords right, not only in itself but in relation to the House of Commons. We believe, too, that the issue is of such importance that it should be put to the people of this country in a referendum, a commitment which is strongly supported by the public according to opinion-poll evidence.
We will want to examine in detail the Government’s revised version of the House of Lords Reform Bill. The first version of the Bill, published last year, was a bad Bill. We thought so; the Joint Committee on the Bill thought so; and the alternative report from the Joint Committee’s minority group thought so. Pretty well everyone thought so, apart from the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Government are proposing their revised Bill in the face of serious and searching criticisms of their first attempt. We will need to consider how far this version gets in dealing with the very big questions which need to be resolved, including those about the primacy of the House of Commons. The Government’s revised Bill today attempts to shore up in various ways the wholly discredited Clause 2 of the original Bill, on Commons primacy, by scrapping the provision entirely and replacing it with a statement in the Bill about the applicability of the Parliament Acts. The Bill also repeals the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. Are there any further constitutional implications of repealing the preamble? I look forward to hearing the views on this issue of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith.
On the applicability of the Parliament Acts, can the Leader of the House explain why, in the Government’s response to the report of the Joint Committee, which has also been published today, they refer on page 7 to their response to recommendation 84 of the Joint Committee, on the Parliament Acts, when their responses to the recommendations go from 82 to 86, without recommendation 84 being included at all? That is interesting.
There are also questions about the powers of the second Chamber; about the exact proportion of elected Members, the length of their terms, whether they should be renewable; about the system of election; about the relationship between the Lords and the Commons, about the position of this House in relation to the outcome of a referendum in Scotland on independence; about the place of bishops or other religious representation; about transitional arrangements, and about the costs of the Government’s reforms.
On the question of costs, the Government have, as the Leader of the House said, finally published the costings today on their revised proposals. I note that these include provision for a number of allowances for Members of an elected House, including an accommodation allowance and a staffing allowance. The costings do not, however, include the cost of elections for the House, put separately by the Government at £85.7 million for each of the elections proposed. Will the Leader tell the House what the Government believe the total net cost of all their proposals will be?
Can the Leader of the House explain to Members of your Lordships’ House what the position will be in an elected House in relation to remuneration? The Government have been briefing the media heavily in the past few days that Members of the new elected House will not be paid a salary but will instead have a daily allowance before tax of £300. However, new Section 7A of Clause 46 of the Bill specifies that,
“members of the House of Lords are to be paid … on a monthly basis in arrears”.
Will the Leader of the House clarify which is correct?
Of huge importance to my party and to the Joint Committee, the revised Bill does not contain a referendum. There is little logic in a position which says that we have referendums to decide whether we have city mayors, but not to decide whether to alter radically the composition and structure of our Parliament. We shall see whether the Government’s present non-inclusion of a referendum in the Bill survives whatever parliamentary processes the Bill faces. However, can the Leader of the House say why he believes that 55%—according to the latest opinion poll—of the people of this country are wrong in wanting to have their say on these matters in a referendum?
On these matters, Labour, whether in the other place or in your Lordships’ House, will seek as an Opposition to scrutinise, amend and improve the Bill during its passage through Parliament. Lords reform is a serious issue and we expect the Government to take Parliament seriously, too, in considering it. That is why we want to see proper scrutiny of the Bill in the other place, where it will be taken first. That is why we will oppose in the other place the proposed timetable for the Bill, which would, effectively, guillotine debate. However, we are a party in favour of reform, which is why Ed Miliband also announced yesterday that Labour in the Commons will be voting for a Second Reading of the Bill. For a Bill about which we have real reservations, this is an unusual step for an Opposition. There is indeed plenty of precedent for legislative proposals being opposed at this stage.
For example, in 1999, the party opposite, including 11 members of the current Cabinet, proposed and voted for a reasoned amendment and against the Second Reading of the Labour Government’s 1999 House of Lords Bill on hereditary Peers. We know that there are members of my party, both in this House and the other place, who would wish to vote against the Bill for reasons of principle. I respect those who hold this view, but the shadow Cabinet, of which I am a member, disagrees with them, and Labour will vote for a Second Reading in the other place later this month.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
It is next month, forgive me. It is not July—hell.
We know, too, that there are great differences of opinion—vast gulfs of opinion—between the constituent parties of the coalition, and within the ranks of the Conservative Party, both in the other place and in this House. As the Prime Minister said in the other place earlier today, there are those in all parties who oppose further reform of the House of Lords, just as there are those who support further reform. We shall see how those differences emerge as the Bill goes through its Commons stages.
It is likely that those stages will be protracted. The Bill is, I suspect, many months away from coming before this House, if indeed it manages to get out of the Commons. Given the dates for Second Reading in the other place, it is likely that the House of Commons will go into Committee on the Bill when it sits in September. Recently the noble Lord the Leader of the House all but issued as a threat the possibility that this House would have to sit in September to deal with the Financial Services Bill. Can I inform him that in order to deal with a range of matters, such as the Government’s legislative programme and their record on jobs and growth, we on these Benches would welcome sitting in September when the Commons will be deliberating on this Bill. I ask the Leader of the House to arrange now that this House should indeed sit in September to consider these important matters.
On the overall matter of further reform of your Lordships’ House, there are wide differences of opinion across the House. That was clearly demonstrated right across the House in the days of debate we have had on the issue recently, both in considering the report of the Joint Committee and the alternative report and in the days devoted to the constitutional issues during the debate in this Chamber on the gracious Speech. However, what was also demonstrated in those debates was a seriousness about this issue—a determination that it should be considered properly, and a clear intention to scrutinise fully whatever proposals the Government place before Parliament. Can the Leader of the House give us a commitment that if this Bill does get to your Lordships’ House, the Members of this House will have all the time they need to scrutinise the proposals fully and properly?
We have revised proposals before us today. In this House we have time—possibly a good deal of time—to consider these proposals while they are in the House of Commons. That is what I expect that many individual Members of this House will wish to do. For our part, both in the other place and, if necessary, in your Lordships’ House, we will ensure that the Government’s proposals are properly debated, properly considered, properly questioned and properly scrutinised. That is the job of the Opposition; and starting from the publication of the Bill today, that is the job that we will be getting on with.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, having read what Mr Miliband said in support of the prospect of reform, I was surprised by much of what the noble Baroness said this afternoon. I was very impressed with what Mr Miliband said yesterday. He pledged the Labour Party’s support for the Second Reading of the Bill, even before he had had an opportunity to see it. Perhaps when he has read it, he will decide to support a programme Motion to rush it through the House of Commons and into this House as quickly as possible.
The noble Baroness asked whether this should be a priority. It has been hanging around for so long that we have to get around to it at some stage. It started in 1998-99 as a great priority of the previous Government. They published their last White Paper in 2008. I dare say that if the Labour Party had won the election it would have brought forward a Bill. This coalition has decided that it is time to bring this debate to an end and to ask Parliament what its view is, and it is right that we should do so.
There is also the bizarre suggestion that when important things are happening, Parliament cannot decide on other important issues. It is worth reflecting that on 6 and 7 June 1944, the House of Lords was debating the all-important Butler Education Act on Second Reading. Of course, getting growth into the economy is important, but that is not going to be done just in Parliament; it is going to be done by businesses and entrepreneurs up and down the country.
The noble Baroness reiterated the Labour Party’s view that what is most important in reform is that the House should be 100% elected. Respectfully, we disagree, as did the Joint Committee. Although she did not say that the powers between the Houses should be codified, I think that is what she meant. Again, respectfully, we disagree. She said that there should be a referendum. We see no case whatever for a referendum on the issue. Parliament should decide. It would cost £80 million to have a referendum on this issue, which was included as part of all three main parties’ political manifestos. I urge the Opposition to have more confidence in their manifesto, which is only two years old. I hate to point out to noble Lords opposite that there were no referendums in 1958 or 1999, when the composition of the House was changed, and we see no case for one now.
On the question of primacy, it is true that the Joint Committee had a substantial debate on Clause 2, helped by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the Government reflected on that. That is why we have changed the Bill in this way. This is in part because this Bill is about the composition of a reformed House of Lords and the transition arrangements for getting there. It is not about the functions, powers and role of the two Houses, which we would like to see remain unaffected by that change. The Bill clearly states that the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 will continue to apply after the introduction of elected Members.
The Parliament Acts underpin the primacy of the House of Commons in statute. They limit the legislative power of the Lords and ensure that any Administration with a majority in the Commons can ultimately pass legislation without agreement of the House of Lords. We are not aware of any further constitutional implications of repealing the preamble to the 1911 Act.
On the questions of cost raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, she rightly pointed out that the cost of election was excluded from the cost of the House; it stands at £85.7 million every five years. We believe that at the end of the transition period the projected additional annual cost of the House of Lords will be £13.6 million. Of course there will be other associated costs during the course of transition. As for pay, there is something inherently useful about the current arrangements whereby Peers have a daily allowance, and we wish to replicate that through a per diem salary that would be paid monthly in arrears but would be assessed on daily attendance in this House.
In the course of the next few months, there will be many opportunities to discuss some of these issues, but it is also right for the House of Commons now to take its view. I have no idea when the House of Commons is going to discuss these issues, and whether it will be early or late in the autumn. We also have work to do and we should get on with that before dealing with the Bill when it gets to us some time in the winter.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt can I say explicitly that if my Government had been in power now and had faced the economic situation which the country faces now, this would not have been at the top of our priorities and we would not be discussing this Bill in the House of Commons today?
G20 Summit
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for repeating a Statement given in the other place by the Prime Minister on the recent G20 meeting. Unusually, I did not see a copy of the Statement in advance. I am not complaining, but it does make life rather difficult.
I will start with the foreign policy issues. On the Falklands, there is support from this side of the House for the absolute need to protect the principle of self-determination of the islanders. On Syria, there is deep concern on all sides of the House about the continued failure of the Annan plan to deliver a cessation of violence, and there is cross-party consensus on the appalling nature of the Assad regime and the need for the toughest sanctions against Syria. We welcome today’s extension of EU sanctions but given the urgent need for an immediate end to the dreadful and escalating hostilities, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that it is now vital that the wider international community unites around the need for the toughest sanctions against Syria?
The Prime Minister said in his press conference that:
“President Putin has been explicit that he is not locked into Assad remaining in charge in Syria”.
If correct, this clearly represents an important step forward. However, Foreign Minister Lavrov said afterwards in a statement that these comments did not “correspond with reality”. Can the Leader of the House clarify the position?
I now turn to the main business of the summit—the economy. With our country in double-dip recession, with world growth slowing and with the eurozone crisis, if ever there was a time for the international community to come together and act, this was it. All we got from this summit was more of the same: drift and inaction in the face of a global crisis. The Prime Minister claimed afterwards that the summit had made “important progress” on a number of issues,
“on the Eurozone, on the lack of global growth and on the rise of protectionism”.
This sounded familiar. Then we realised why—because the Prime Minister said exactly the same after the last summit, in Cannes last November.
The Prime Minister now says:
“In terms of the slide towards protectionism, I think that has been halted”.
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister told us precisely the same thing in November? That summit was a success because action had been taken to,
“stop the slide to protectionism”.
That was a great triumph—the slide that had been stopped last November has been halted again.
On global growth, the Cannes summit communiqué said that,
“should global economic conditions materially worsen”,
countries should,
“agree to take discretionary measures to support domestic demand”.
Well, global conditions have worsened and therefore, being true to that communiqué, this G20 should have been a coming together of world leaders to work for a co-ordinated plan for jobs and growth. And what did we get? The communiqué just repeated the same words:
“Should economic conditions deteriorate significantly further, those countries with sufficient fiscal space stand ready to coordinate and implement discretionary fiscal actions to support domestic demand”.
No change, no action.
On the eurozone, I note that the Statement says:
“As full members of the European Union, and a significant net contributor to its budget it is vital that we speak plainly about what needs to happen”.
I think that our partners would have listened to us more if the Prime Minister had not decided to use the veto that never was in December. Actions for short-term political gain have long-term consequences.
The Prime Minister said that while this was not a European Council meeting, progress was made with,
“significant agreements. Now the eurozone countries need to get on and implement them”.
But is not the reality that there is no agreement on the main issues of substance, such as how to recapitalise Spanish banks; how the European Central Bank can stand behind member countries; how to prevent the escalation of problems in bond markets; or how to boost the size of the firewall fund to make it work? Instead, we had more of the same.
For people here at home, the economic reality is that things are getting worse, not better, and there is nothing in this summit’s conclusions to make any difference to that. And there is a simple reason why there was nothing for Britain at this summit: because we have a Prime Minister, and a Government, who simply argue for more of the same. What a contrast with France, where the president is passionate about growth, understanding that it is a prerequisite for dealing with deficits. Austerity is not working; with Britain in a double-dip recession, one of only two G20 countries in that position, can the Leader of the House tell us whether at the G20 the Government were actually arguing for anything different from what they were arguing for last November? From today’s Statement, it does not look as though they were.
Can the Leader of the House confirm that at the time of the Cannes summit, UK growth for 2012 was forecast to be 1.2% and that now the average of independent forecasts is just 0.3%? On the world economy, what this summit needed was a co-ordinated plan to generate greater growth, but the international community is divided between those who want a move towards greater growth and jobs and those whose answer to the failure of the last two years is simply more of the same. I fear that, on this issue, this Government and this Prime Minister are on the wrong side of that argument.
There is one important lesson for the Government from the last week. A global summit in the face of an economic hurricane needs action, not words. The reality is that the Government and the Prime Minister have come back from this summit with nothing for Britain—nothing to cope with double-dip recession, nothing to help Britain’s families and nothing to ensure growth in the world economy. I trust that when the Prime Minister returns from the European summit next week he has growth at the top of his Statement and agenda. Britain deserves more than was achieved at the G20 summit, and we deserve a change of direction; a change of economic strategy; a change that puts action first, not words; and a change that puts jobs and growth first.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition is on good form today. Typically, she sees a socialist president being elected in France, looks over the water and believes that everything over there is going swimmingly. However, she has not read what the good president has said. He said that,
“national debt is the enemy of the left and the enemy of France”.
We agree with that. Mr Hollande would balance France’s budget faster than the coalition plans for the United Kingdom. When asked how he would stimulate growth, the French President said, “The means cannot be extra public spending since we want to rein it in”. We can agree with that; the noble Baroness and her party cannot.
We very much welcome the noble Baroness’s support on the Falklands and Syria. The situation in Syria is immensely dangerous, difficult and complicated. We are still discussing with key partners what more we can do, including in the United Nations, to support the Annan plan. There remain differences over sequencing and the exact shape of how a potential transition can take place but we have put in place a strong EU arms embargo, are closely tracking other shipments to Syria and want to work with countries and companies around the world to stop them. We have had useful conversations with Russia but the key thing is to get together, to work together and to try to implement the Annan plan, if at all possible.
I rather admire the fact that the noble Baroness’s research led her to spot that some of the words in this communiqué were the same as those used at the Cannes summit. She read that as signifying that nothing had changed. However, it may also prove some admirable consistency emanating out of G20 summits in that there are still common problems with which to deal, and they are going to be dealt with.
The noble Baroness took a pot shot at what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister did at the EU summit at the end of December, which was not to sign up to the communiqué. As I said at the time, the reason my right honourable friend did not sign that communiqué was because he believed in protecting British interests, which is what he did. The noble Baroness and her party would have signed it and, we believe, would have sold vital British interests down the river.
The G20 was a success in the sense that many of these gatherings are a success as an opportunity for the leaders of different countries to discuss some of the key issues facing the world and to try to come to an agreement. There was no shying away from the fact that one of the most difficult issues facing the world at the moment is the problems in the eurozone. We have come up with what we believe to be helpful and constructive words to try to encourage the eurozone to find a solution in preparation for the European Council later this week. However, in the end, the countries in the eurozone have to make those decisions themselves.
House of Lords: Behaviour in the Chamber
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. In 1999, the average attendance at the House of Lords was 350; in 2005, it was 400; in the previous Session it was 475; so we can see the increase there. However, as far as behaviour is concerned, more than half of the Peers appointed since the general election have not attended any of the induction seminars offered by the Clerk of the Parliaments. I have written to them, encouraging them to do so. I am glad to say that the Clerk of the Parliaments will be resuming a further series of seminars in the autumn and I would very much encourage them to go along.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Like the noble Lord the Leader, I welcome the fact that this House is more assertive in terms of interventions, but it is not so different from how it was in the past. I well recall that my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland was intervened on 20 times in one speech. I would like to put that on the record. Does the noble Lord agree that if more recommendations from the Goodlad report on working practices were agreed to and implemented perhaps that would assist with behaviour in the House?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, many of the recommendations in the Goodlad report on working practices have been agreed, but quite a lot of them have been rejected by the House. The Procedure Committee will no doubt wish to take that into account.
Financial Services Bill
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I have been on a pretty steep learning curve about the procedures of the House since last Monday. When the Motion to put the whole Committee stage of the Financial Services Bill into Grand Committee was withdrawn I imagined that the will of the House would be respected, that that would be the last we heard of it and that there would be no question of our now having to talk about some compromise on all this—namely that the Bill should be split, with some of it debated in Grand Committee and some on the Floor of the House.
Therefore, I talked to the Clerk of the Parliaments about it, realising that perhaps I did not totally understand. He explained that when the Government withdrew the Motion, it did not mean that they could not bring back another. I said, “What should I have done about the Motion that was put down originally?”. The Clerk said that that Motion should have been amended; it could have been amended at the last minute by a manuscript amendment, but he said that that was not much approved of in this House. However, I am afraid that that is what I have been forced to do today for the simple reason that the Motion was tabled on Friday, when the House was not even sitting. There has been no opportunity to table a proper amendment to it; it has to be a manuscript amendment. I apologise to the House for that but I did not see that I had an alternative.
I reiterate: we are talking about the Financial Services Bill. It is a major piece of legislation which has been drafted to reorganise our financial institutions completely and regulate them properly. I do not think that the people of this country would understand it if we were to put any part of this Bill in Grand Committee. This extremely important legislation needs very serious consideration by your Lordships. As well as that, this Bill brings out the best of your Lordships’ House. There is a tremendous amount of expertise here which needs to be brought to the fore. That can be done much better if the whole of Committee stage is debated on the Floor of the House.
I ask the House to consider seriously whether any of this Bill should be committed to a Grand Committee. As a noble friend said to me earlier, if we do not discuss the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House, which other Bills will we consider on the Floor of the House? It seems that the Government have a desire to put everything into Grand Committee. It is for us to stand up against that and say, “No, we want the whole of this very important Bill to be considered on the Floor of the House”. I hope that the House will support my amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, we have before us a very important matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has said, how we regulate our financial services and the financial services sector is vital to economic and financial stability. What our banks do and how they do it is important for the prospects for growth and employment in this country.
We on these Benches had not seen the terms of these Motions before today and we certainly had not agreed to them in the usual channels. I had a private meeting with the Leader of the House on Wednesday morning at which we discussed this matter and I told him in all honesty that I could not agree to the terms of the Motion, that I needed to have further consultations and discussions with my colleagues and that I would come back to him and the usual channels in due course. That I did first thing on Thursday morning, since when we have heard nothing about the Motion before us today. As for the Opposition’s role on this Bill within the usual channels, I wrote to the Leader of the House this morning, once we had seen the terms of the Motion before us. I would be happy to provide noble Lords with a copy of that letter.
My concern, much more than accusations from the Leader and the ins-and-outs of the usual channels, is what Members of this House want. When the Government tried to put the whole of the Bill in Grand Committee a week ago today I thought that the statements made by Members from across the whole of this House made clear what the majority of them wanted. At a very late hour, during that debate on the Floor of this Chamber, Members made it abundantly clear that they wanted the whole of the Bill to be considered by a Committee of the whole House. What Members of the House were telling the Government was clear.
Last Tuesday I had discussions with the Government about splitting the Bill and taking some parts on the Floor of the House and some in Grand Committee. I could see some merit in that approach, which is why we were prepared to consider it constructively in discussions within the usual channels. Yes we discussed it, but no we did not agree on it—precisely because I had to have discussions with my colleagues on the Benches behind me, which is the right and proper thing to do. In any case, we would not have agreed to the split that the Government now propose. Neither would we have agreed to only three days in a Committee of the whole House. We do not think that that split works. We also think that it was wrong not to include Part 4, on the mechanisms to deal with current issues, for consideration by a Committee of the whole House.
This House is self-regulating and on matters such as this it is for this House, and this House alone, to decide what it wishes to do. From our soundings, most Members on the Benches behind me want the Bill to be considered by a Committee of the whole House, which is what I believe many Members from all across the House want to see. That is precisely what the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, proposes.
I therefore look forward to this House, not the Government, deciding what it wants to do. From these Benches, we do not believe that the Government’s proposal is the right approach. We believe that the House should reject it and accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I hope that the Government will listen to the House when it makes its decision today.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, in the light of the assurances made by the Leader of the House on the Motion, I am genuinely puzzled as to why it is being brought forward. He has told us that it has nothing whatever to do with the decks being cleared for a House of Lords Bill. If that is the case, I simply do not know why the Government are so anxious to put preferably the whole of the Bill and at worst a significant part of the Bill into Grand Committee. I remind the Leader and the House that it is a pretty rare procedure in this House—less so in the other House—to split Bills between Grand Committee and the Floor of the House. Frankly, it is done for the best reasons, as I have said on occasions in the past, when the Government are under tremendous pressure of time.
Believe it or not, I have some sympathy with the Government when they claim that they are under tremendous time constraints. However, this simply will not wash in the current Session, when we have the smallest number of Bills and the lightest legislative programme of any Session in recent political history—certainly lighter than at any stage for the last 20 years; I have not gone back any further. There are, I believe, some 15 Bills this Session compared with an average of 30 Bills in a normal 12-month Session, so I cannot accept that there is any tremendous pressure on time for the Government, particularly when we finished a day or two early before the Spring Jubilee Recess, which was announced at the last minute. We even finished rather early before Prorogation of the last Session of Parliament, so the Government have cried wolf somewhat on the matter of time and without real justification.
As for the Leader of the House persuading his Back-Benchers, I imagine by saying, “Gosh, if we do not get this Motion through, it will be late night after late night”, I can only say that life gets tough at times. However, I cannot accept that argument, given that the Government are making all sorts of random decisions about having longer recesses than normal and not sitting when the House of Commons is sitting, which again is not normally the case. My argument is therefore really one of bafflement about the pressure on the Government’s time and, frankly, the Government not being able to accept that it means endless late-night sittings.
Lastly, I hope that the Leader of the House will at least acknowledge that it is not a very satisfactory way to treat the House to introduce this Motion on Friday night. I knew absolutely nothing about this Motion going down on the Order Paper until 10 o’clock this morning, like everyone else in the House—perhaps apart from some on the government Benches, I dare say. Anyone who wanted to put down an amendment had no option other than to put down a manuscript amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, did—and I am very pleased that he did. Are we going to have to face this sort of government management of business in the future? Not knowing even a day before what could be a very important decision for the House to make really is a very unsatisfactory way to manage government business.
I appeal to the Leader of the House to listen to what I believe is a very strong view in the House. If he was desperate to put this Motion down, can he please explain the time pressures on him and why it had to go down today? What was wrong with tomorrow? I do not want to sound Machiavellian and suspicious, but the slight feeling is that perhaps the Motion went down on Friday and various people were telephoned over the weekend to the effect, “Please come along and support the Government so that you do not have to sit late at night, night after night”. I do not think that is a very credible argument, so I hope that the Leader of the House will give a satisfactory answer to those questions. If he cannot, he really should withdraw this Motion.
Business
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, the issue of policy announcements being made when Parliament is not sitting was raised by my noble friend Lord Eatwell, but, naturally, the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, did not address it.
Perhaps I may read a brief extract from the Ministerial Code. It states:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament … Every effort should be made to avoid leaving significant announcements to the last day before a recess”.
Why then did the policy changes in relation to VAT have to be made now? If they did, why did the Government not adhere to the Ministerial Code and make the announcement to Parliament? We are one of the Houses of Parliament.
I mention in passing an article by the Chancellor in today’s Daily Mail in which he announces a profound change in policy, some of which I am sure is very welcome, in relation to courts’ and coroners’ proceedings being conducted in secret. Why was that announcement made in the Daily Mail today and not to Parliament?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, on the latter part I think the noble Baroness will find that a Bill will be published soon on this matter. On the first point, which is significant, she said, quite rightly, that the Ministerial Code says that important and significant announcements should be made to Parliament first. The issue on the pasty tax is of course very good news; on the caravan tax, it is also very good news to those who live in and own static caravans. I do not think that it is the most significant or important decision that this Government have ever made. I suspect, although I do not know for certain, that the Treasury felt this was not the most significant announcement to make and therefore did not inform Parliament by way of an Oral Statement.
G8 and NATO Summits
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating a Statement given earlier today in the other place by the Prime Minister on the G8 and NATO meetings. We on these Benches very much welcome the announcement made today about the visit of Aung Sang Suu Kyi. Her whole life is an extraordinary and humbling record of her fight for democracy and human rights and we look forward hugely to her visit to this country, and in particular to her speaking to both Houses of Parliament next month.
I will begin with the NATO summit. On Afghanistan, we welcome the summit’s confirmation that the transition of full security responsibility from ISAF to the Afghan national security forces is set for completion by mid-2013, with the end of British combat operations by the end of 2014. Our troops have already served heroically in Afghanistan for over a decade. We owe them enormous gratitude and I certainly endorse the tribute paid in the Statement. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we want to see them home with their families—and home in the right way, respecting the professionalism that they have shown and the sacrifices that they have made.
To that end, can the Leader give the House a clearer indication of the timetable for the expected draw-down of British combat troops between now and 2014? Can he tell us how many British service personnel the Government expect to remain in Afghanistan after 2014 and which services they will be drawn from, and confirm that those who remain will serve under a NATO command and control structure? Can he tell the House what discussions the Government have had with President Zardari on the issue of land access across Pakistan, which is so vital for British military and ISAF supplies?
Turning to the political situation in Afghanistan, does the Leader of the House agree that honouring the sacrifices and bravery of our troops means taking the political challenge there as seriously as the military challenge? Given that the final stage of the military campaign is under way, what concrete steps will now be taken that were not already in place before Chicago to secure an inclusive political settlement within Afghanistan and between Afghanistan’s regional partners? Does the Leader agree that we need a far greater urgency in seeking this political settlement?
Women in Afghanistan have made significant progress over the past few years, in part thanks to advances in education, which we have supported. We celebrate the fact that women now make up 27% of the Afghan National Assembly—interestingly, this compares to 22% in the House of Commons. However, these courageous women are deeply concerned about what will happen to their hard-fought gains after 2014. Can the Leader assure me that the position of women will be taken into consideration in all talks relating to a political settlement?
On Iran, can the Leader of the House confirm media reports that the issue of Iran’s nuclear capability was discussed last week by the National Security Council? Can he confirm that the Government have sought legal advice on the legality of a range of possible actions by the United Kingdom in relation to Iran’s nuclear capability? Can the Leader update the House on the talks on this issue taking place in Baghdad today?
Turning to the G8, we join with the Government in calling for an immediate end to violence to stop the continuing bloodshed in Syria. The Statement rightly mentioned the discussions that have taken place about Africa. Can the Leader say whether or not Africa will be high on the agenda when the UK takes over the chair of the G8 next year?
On the global economy, we desperately needed a summit that delivered a plan for growth but did not get it. That was because the international community is divided between those who believe that we must have a decisive shift towards growth—including President Obama, now joined by President Hollande—and those who believe that the answer lies in more of the same: that is, the German Chancellor and our Prime Minister. For two years, the Government have been telling the world that austerity alone is the answer. Now, as the recognition dawns that this is not working, the Government find themselves on the wrong side of the argument.
On the economy here at home, this Government have delivered recovery turning into recession, no growth for 18 months and over 1 million young people out of work. Even the IMF is now saying that time is running out for plan A. At the G20 last November, the Prime Minister signed a communiqué that said that,
“should global economic conditions materially worsen”,
countries will take,
“measures to support domestic demand”.
Global conditions have worsened, so what is the action for growth? Where is the decisive shift that we need across the global economy? The reality is that this Prime Minister cannot be the advocate for a plan for growth abroad when he and his Government cannot advance one at home.
Finally, on the European summit tonight, Eurobonds are important, and a stronger firewall would make a difference. However, the crucial thing is demand. Does the Leader of the House accept that without a plan for growth in Europe we cannot get a solution on deficits across Europe that is either politically or economically sustainable? The problem with the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and indeed the Cabinet—of which the noble Lord the Leader of the House is a member—is that they can offer only more of the same. They cannot be part of the solution because they are part of the problem. All they can offer is more austerity—but austerity is not working in Britain and it is not working in Europe. We need jobs and growth in this country. We believe that it is time that this Government shifted their strategy and started to do things to help generate jobs and growth.
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, it is a pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on their first-rate speeches this afternoon. There is a tradition of excellence in these speeches on the occasion of the State Opening of Parliament, and it is a tradition that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have upheld in an exemplary manner. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the Diamond Jubilee and the exemplary example of Her Majesty the Queen. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, and hope that he will enjoy his life on the Back Benches. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to his post. I have to say that I always thought that he was such a nice chap.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his generous comments. As noble Lords will be aware, the noble Lord was a Member of Parliament for South Gloucestershire until his seat was abolished, and was then returned for the Northavon constituency, a victim of boundary changes under the last Conservative Government, and subsequently lost his seat to a Liberal Democrat, Mr Steve Webb. However, I wonder what will happen in this and other seats at the next election when members of the coalition stand against each other, especially after the bloodbath which will follow the boundary changes. As a Gloucestershire girl, albeit from the other side of the mighty river Severn—we are desperately in need of a water Bill, and not just a draft water Bill—and also as a former Chief Whip, my heart warms to the noble Lord, someone with whom I have enjoyed racing days at Chepstow. I have to say that, following last week’s elections, it does look, in parliamentary terms, as though he may not be backing the right horse. As a chartered accountant, he should be more cautious about how best to place his political bets.
If the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is a deeply experienced politician, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is a relatively new girl on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but I would not call her gullible. I was delighted to read that she is an engineer who subsequently taught mathematics and that she, too, has spent much of her time in the south-west. Her work in the community, in the not-for-profit sector, on the rather different issues of rural poverty and Oman and, of course, her work in the National Health Service are all sterling tributes to her energy, commitment and sense of service. The noble Baroness is also clearly a woman of some fortitude and resilience, in that she served as the election agent for the then Mr Paul Tyler in the 1997 election. To serve as the election agent of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and subsequently to arrive on the same Benches as him in the House of Lords must of course be a pleasure, but must also offer an unrivalled chance to hear the noble Lord’s views on further reform of your Lordships’ House.
For a considerable number of Members of your Lordships’ House, today’s events will be the first time they have experienced in person, in their roles now, the State Opening of Parliament and the gracious Speech, setting out the legislative programme of this Government; the first time, because of the unprecedented length of the last Session. It is now two years since this coalition Government set out their first legislative programme at the start of what was to become a marathon—I would say monster—Session. Think back to that time. Think back to the flurries of excitement and urgency in which the coalition was formed in the wake of no single political party winning the general election. Think back to the days of seeing Liberals in office for the first time, other than in wartime, since 1906. Think back to the sun-dappled days of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the Downing Street garden. Think back to when it all seemed, for them, bright and sparkling and new.
Then look at the reality. The reality of a Tory-led Government doing what all Tory-led Governments have done since 1948: attacking the National Health Service. The reality of Liberal Democrats rejecting their signed, explicit pre-election promises not to increase university tuition fees, blighting the life chances of a generation of young people, and bringing charges of political treason which made themselves manifest, I suspect, in last week’s local elections and which will hit them even harder in the next general election. The reality of the loss of more than 16,000 police officers through cutting too far and too fast; cuts so unacceptable to the police that they are marching against them tomorrow, under the banner of “20% cuts are criminal”. My own local and principled chief constable in Gloucestershire has resigned rather than implement them; indeed, I believe that he will be marching tomorrow. The reality of the coalition’s unstinting attacks, across a range of policies, on hard-working families, on women and on young people; the reality of the Government’s botched and partisan attempts at constitutional reform; the shambles of the AV referendum; gerrymandering parliamentary constituencies; and rigging the length of Parliaments. That is the record of this Government in their first two years since the first Queen’s Speech. It is not the sun-dappled achievement that the Prime Minister and the increasingly desperate-sounding Deputy Prime Minister like to try to promote. It is the record of failure and people being hit hard by Tory policies and Tory cuts, which are supported every step of the way, to their party’s permanent shame, by the Liberal Democrats. It is not liberal or democratic, just Tory.
The real record is of businesses and shops closing; of people being put out of work; of young people never getting into work; of the already disadvantaged being forced to move hundreds of miles to get a roof over their heads; of communities being blighted by cuts; of trying to sell off our forests; of tax cuts to the rich of Britain; of once again being isolated in Europe; and, worst of all, of an economy now back in recession in the first double-dip recession since the pre-Thatcher era. It is the record of an economy which should now be about jobs and growth, and not about cuts which are going too far and too fast. That is the record of this coalition Government and that is the reality.
It is no wonder that Conservative councillors lost their seats all across the country in last week’s local elections. I agree with the noble Lord that we should all be ashamed that the turnout was so low. The party’s dismal showing was beaten only by its coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, who saw their number of local councillors fall below the 3,000 level for the first time in the party’s entire history.
This is a Government whom we can now all see are unfair, incompetent and out of touch. Does the Government’s legislative programme show that the coalition has listened to the electors who so soundly and so clearly rejected their policies last week? What is most noticeable about the legislative programme is what is not in it rather than what is. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, there is nothing on jobs or growth, and nothing to get this recession-mired economy moving. There is nothing to ease people’s worries about their jobs, their mortgages, their children’s opportunities, the cost of their weekly shop and filling the car, the NHS and schools, crime, the present and what will happen when they get old, and their worries about the future.
Amid newspaper reports of the Queen’s Speech being ripped up at the last minute to make way for today’s offering—and the inclusion of a Bill on donors to charities, trying to right the wrong of the Budget, which is clearly nothing more than a panic measure—we heard the legislative equivalent of cars crashing gearboxes as the Government went into reverse on a whole range of issues. That is in the wake of not only last week’s election results but the interpretation immediately put on them by Tory Back-Benchers who straight away were hoisting warning cones about the need to see a return to Conservative values and the end of the Liberal Democrat tail wagging the coalition dog. There is no legislation on gay marriage and, suddenly, a very different tone on further reform of your Lordships’ House.
On television over the weekend, no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer was kind enough to insist that House of Lords reform would not be allowed to be a distraction. He said:
“Look, when it comes to the House of Lords, Parliament will debate this—and Parliament’s perfectly capable of debating many things, that’s what Parliaments do—but it is not going to be the over-riding priority of this Government, absolutely not. The over-riding priority is fixing the economy.”
He went on to say that Lords reform,
“is not where the efforts of the Government and the executive are going to be directed”.
Even the ever buoyant Leader of the House pitched in, revealing his view that plans for Lords reform could be killed in the Commons—not, in his view, by the Opposition but by his own side. It could be killed by Conservative Back-Benchers opposed to an 80 per cent elected second Chamber.
Last week, this House debated two reports on further Lords reform; namely, the reports of the all-party Joint Committee on the House of Lords reform Bill and the alternative report proposed by a very large minority group on the Joint Committee. Both argued for a referendum on further reform of your Lordships’ House, a policy for which my party, and only my party, has been arguing and a policy for which the coalition has been arguing that there is no need. Suddenly, we have “a source very close to Mr Cameron”, as the papers put it, saying that the Prime Minister is now “very likely” to approve a referendum on Lords’ reform, which, naturally, I would welcome. But that is in direct contradiction of the insistence of his deputy, Mr Nick Clegg, although I noted the views of the noble Lords, Lord Ashdown and Lord Tyler, among others, last week.
Further reform of your Lordships’ House is indeed indicated in the legislative programme set out in the gracious Speech but it is set out in a way which seems to damage the Government both ways at once. First, it could barely be given a less propitious birth. All it says in the Queen’s Speech is:
“A Bill will be brought forward to reform the composition of the House of Lords”.
I am sure that all noble Lords will wonder exactly what that might mean. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I, too, look forward to further expansion in the speech of the Leader of the House. Put that together with the briefing which has gone on around it, from the Chancellor on the weekend media to the guidance that seems to be emanating from the centre of government today, that there is nothing set in stone, nothing definite which will happen, nothing which will upset the applecart, nothing which will displease Tory Back-Benchers and nothing which will proceed without consensus. But whatever else last week’s reports from the Joint Committee and the minority group of the Joint Committee showed, they showed with absolute clarity that there is no consensus at all on Lords reform—no consensus about what is a consensus, as has been said; no consensus within each of the two Houses; no consensus across each of the two Houses; and no consensus between the two Houses. Crucially, the briefing battle around today’s Queen’s Speech shows us clearly that there is no consensus on Lords reform within the coalition, either.
What noble Lords see before them is the prospect of a Bill which looks as though it can barely muster enough energy to be a Bill. And yet, at precisely the same time, it is still distorting this legislative programme. So much has been shovelled aside to make way for it. The media were full of stories last week listing what has already gone. So there will be no Bill on enshrining in law the target for international aid of 0.7% of national income—just a promise, rather than the promised Bill; no Bill getting high-speed rail going, despite the warm words about infrastructure investment in yesterday’s damp squib of a relaunch; no Bills on a register of lobbyists, despite the scandals in government; no Bills on bailiff reform or forced marriage; and just draft Bills on social care and water. There is also no mention of executive pay, despite what we heard Mr Cable saying at lunchtime. All promised, none delivered.
We will look carefully at the Bills that the Government are proposing to bring forward on adult care; on family-friendly work flexibility; on arrangements for children with special educational needs; on pensions; on a green investment bank; on a groceries code adjudicator; on public sector pensions; and others. We will support them where possible. Indeed, many of the ideas have a resonance of some of the things that we were proposing, and I welcome that. But the devil will be in the detail, and we have seen in this last, long, two-year Session how wretched that detail can be—on the NHS, welfare, legal aid and forests.
Even after what we are led to believe has been major surgery to this Queen’s Speech, even after the reverses, about-turns and changes of position, this is still a legislative programme which not only lacks a narrative but clearly shows that the Government lack the vision, hope and optimism that we as a country need. What the country wants, what the country made plain last week that it requires, is clear. The people of this country want to see this Government take action—not action to help this coalition, but action to help this country. People want to see action on jobs, growth and the economy. Where in the Queen’s Speech is that action, the strategy for growth and jobs? Where is the legislation for helping this country out of recession and the programme for the people of this country? Not in the legislative programme that we have seen today.
What we have seen today is a programme for no change—a programme where nothing is changing because this Tory-led Government are putting the wrong people first. The Government are trying to build a narrative that the Queen’s Speech is family friendly, yet in the Budget they are asking millions of families to pay more, while giving tax cuts to millionaires. They are laying off thousands of nurses in the NHS while spending billions on a wasteful and destructive NHS reorganisation, and they are cutting spending and raising taxes too far and too fast, leading to low growth and high unemployment.
What should have been in today’s Queen’s Speech are measures to help boost growth and jobs, to help living standards and to help unemployed young people. There should have been a fair deal on tax, reversing the tax cuts for the rich; a fair deal on energy, breaking the dominance of the big six power companies; a fair deal on transport; a fair deal for consumers; and a fair deal on jobs. That is the kind of Queen’s Speech which this country wants to see and that is the kind of Queen’s Speech which this country needs to see. That is why we on these Benches will be putting down an amendment to the Motion before the House, as the noble Lord the Leader has done in past years, calling on this coalition Government to address properly the economic recovery which this country needs, to bring in measures to boost growth and jobs, and to improve living standards and the opportunities for young people who are out of work. That is what these Benches will be pressing for and that is what we urge Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House to support.
With that amendment before us, this is a Queen’s Speech which we look forward to debating over the rest of this week and next. It contains a legislative programme that we look forward to scrutinising and to supporting, where possible, and, where we oppose it, to doing so as vigorously as we can, over the rest of the new Session. This is a Government who we look forward to seeing defeated at the next election.
I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
Chairman of Committees
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I echo the words of the Leader of the House and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, as the new Lord Chairman. He will be a loss to these Benches but, I am sure, a fine Lord Chairman. Of course, he has a hard act to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was Lord Chairman of your Lordships’ House for all the time that I have been a Member, and for a fair deal longer. The fact that he will no longer be Lord Chairman seems rather strange to many of us.
In his time as Lord Chairman, he steered the House’s internal and domestic side through many difficulties, but he rose to all the challenges. He was a particular stalwart a few years ago when the House was in the middle of a set of events that led eventually to our adoption of a new system of financial support for Members. Not so long ago he also became an unlikely star of YouTube—but of course not the House’s only star as he was joined shortly afterwards by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whose turn was also something of a must-watch.
The noble Lord served this House loyally, with great dedication and with huge effort as Chairman of Committees. I know that the officials and staff of the House, like us, enjoyed working with him and held him in high regard. On behalf of these Benches, I thank him for all that he did for the House, and give him our warmest good wishes for the future.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to welcome the elevation of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, because the last time I commented in this House on the noble Lord I said that he brought a “superficial academic authority” to his remarks. I make it clear that this was a moment of impulse, instantly regretted, and hope it will not influence my relations with him in his new, elevated position.
I have no problem at all in paying great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. I always thought that Brabs brought to his position all the touch and authority of a housemaster at a minor public school—which is exactly what the House of Lords needs in a Chairman of Committees. Noble Lords may get passionate about political issues, but they should see Brabs trying to steer through the introduction of an electronic pass system on the doors, or a new way of going in and out of the car park, or a safe way of crossing from Millbank. This required skill of the highest political order and was always done from the Dispatch Box with the most benign authority. It has been a pleasure to work with him over these years and I am pleased to pay this tribute to his quiet skills, for which the whole House is in his debt.
Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, with his vast experience, I know that my noble friend Lord Boswell of Aynho will take on this role exceedingly ably.
It is a great pleasure at this point to pay tribute to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Roper. The work of the European Union Committee is very highly regarded not only within this House but among national parliaments across the EU, and that is due in no small part to the skill and dedication of its chairman. The noble Lord was exceptionally well qualified for the chairmanship of the European Union Committee. To pick just two highlights from his CV, in the 1990s he was the first director of the Institute for Security Studies in Paris, and in this House he was the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip from 2001 to 2005. From there it was a natural progression to becoming the chairman of the foreign affairs sub-committee, and in December 2008 the chairman of the Select Committee. As chairman, the noble Lord has steered the committee through a pivotal time for national parliaments in the EU, not to mention testing times for the European Union as a whole. Under the Lisbon treaty, national parliaments were given new powers as the guardians of subsidiarity, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, directed the adaptation of the committee’s work to these new powers and responsibilities. He has done that, as he has done all his work, with good humour, good sense and impressive attention to detail. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to him.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome to the role of Deputy Chairman of Committees the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho. I know that his long-standing interest in and involvement with Europe will stand him in good stead for the job, as of course it did for the noble Lord, Lord Roper. He has extraordinary and deep knowledge, and he is held in the highest regard throughout the European Union as well as in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, has steered the European Union Committee with his customary skill, knowledge and courtesy throughout his period as its chair. He has been applying all of those qualities to managing the House’s current proposals to do some redrawing of its committees with considerable success. I know that that has caused the noble Lord and members of the committee pain, but I am grateful for the way in which he carried out the change.
We on these Benches, where, we suspect, despite his shift 30 years ago, perhaps part of his heart still lies, thank him for all that he has done and we wish him well for the future.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has made a journey not unlike my own, to which the noble Baroness has just referred. I am still smarting from that stiletto in the ribs delivered some time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I would only remind him of the story of the young Conservative candidate fighting his first election in one of the Welsh valley seats who started his adoption meeting by saying, “I was a born a Tory, I am a Tory, and I will die a Tory”, and a voice came from the back saying, “Why, man, have you no ambitions?”. Certainly I have no ambitions to join the Conservative Party but I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Roper, back on our Benches.
I am very proud of the way the noble Lord has carried out the chairmanship of the European Union Committee. I think all sides of the House take pleasure in the reputation that that committee has for its diligence and objectivity in dealing with the issues of Europe, and much of that has been, over the last few years, due to the skill of John Roper. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, indicated, that skill comes from a deep and long involvement in European affairs as an academic and a politician, and we have all benefited from it.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, e-mailed me to say that he would be asking the noble Lord to take this job, I replied with just one word: “Excellent”, and that is what I think it is—excellent.