Sexual Harassment in Parliament

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question today. It is clearly unacceptable and offensive to their office and to individuals for anyone, whether or not in a position of power, to act inappropriately towards another in a workplace. Such sexual and sleazy behaviour and abuse is highly intimidating for the person on the receiving end and it affects their colleagues.

This is not a party-political issue: it is a human and workplace issue that must concern us all. The workplace, especially here in Parliament, should always be one where the individual can give their best. No staff member or colleague should have to cope with or manage such inappropriate behaviour and no one should be frightened to speak up or make a complaint to do with any kind of harassment, bullying or sexual intimidation.

That means that the mechanisms for complaints, advice and support have to be in place. I welcome today’s Statement as a first step on this road. However, the third point of the guiding principles states that,

“the support team should have the ability to recommend onward referral of a case—to ensure appropriate investigation takes place”,

but I am not clear on how that will happen and what mechanisms the Government are suggesting or putting forward. Clearly the most serious complaints are a matter for the police but does the Leader of the House agree that, in dealing with any such complaints, the key has to be a process of good employment practices embedded in the whole culture of Parliament?

Does she further agree that it would be helpful for all political parties and the parliamentary authorities to publish their complaints procedures, so that anyone who finds themselves having to make a complaint can do so with the confidence of knowing how that complaint will be dealt with? Any such process has to be explicitly clear, sensitive and robust. I advise all staff and colleagues to be members of a trade union, which are experts in processes and procedures and are able to give advice.

Recent press reports of Ministers or ex-Ministers abusing their positions by behaving inappropriately damage not only those individuals but the institution of Parliament as a whole. From talking to colleagues I know that most parliamentarians treat their staff and colleagues with respect and decency and are appalled that such allegations have been made. However, there are those few who fail to meet appropriate standards. Parliament has always to aim for the highest standards.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness for her excellent comments. She is absolutely right that this is not party-political but a human and workplace issue. Certainly her tone shows that we can and want to work together to ensure that we tackle inappropriate behaviour and that Parliament is an enjoyable place where people can come to work and feel safe.

She is right that the key will be the mechanisms and process. That is why we have set out the direction of travel today but we will need to work through the commissions with the House authorities, at speed, to ensure that we get a robust—and legally robust—procedure so that when people come forward with these kinds of allegations, which can be extremely difficult, they know that they will be treated fairly and properly, and that their comments will be properly reflected and action taken.

I assure her that I am looking forward to working with leaders across the House, the commission and, of course, our colleagues in the Commons. We have been very clear that this needs to be two-House-wide, working together. We need to come together as Parliament to ensure that we get the right processes in place.

European Council

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. It serves to remind us how interlinked with the EU we are on so many issues, as she outlined. It is not just about having common interests; we are co-dependent on issues that affect not just our economy, but our safety, security and well-being as a nation. We also add our appreciation for the work of the Royal Navy for intercepting criminals involved in people trafficking and smuggling, and for the lives it saves.

At a previous European Council summit in June 2015 the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that the digital single market,

“is a prime example of where we need the EU to unlock the potential”,

of the,

“single market for the benefit of businesses and consumers”.

Since then, we in the UK have played a leading role in the EU’s approach. That has clearly been of great benefit, given the comments in the Statement, but can the noble Baroness tell us how we will continue to play that role in shaping policy, given that we will no longer have a seat at the table?

Important progress has been made since the last summit on security and defence across a number of areas, including cybersecurity, which is essential across Europe and here at home. Amber Rudd, as Home Secretary, has been very clear that it is totally unthinkable that we could crash out of the EU with no ongoing arrangements on those issues, yet David Davis, as Brexit Secretary, still maintains that leaving the EU without any deal must remain an option. Liam Fox is adamant that there will not be the Armageddon some have predicted, which implies that all will be okay. It will not. Surely we should aim for better than it just not being Armageddon. Will the noble Baroness clarify that, if no agreement were to be made on the key issues and we crashed out of the EU in what has been described as the no-deal scenario, it would not be business as usual on defence, security or policing? Does she accept that that scenario is the worst possible outcome and totally irresponsible?

Leading into this summit, the Prime Minister’s Florence speech was helpful. We welcomed the change in position and tone, but we await the details. She will be aware of the very deep unease from businesses about what the transition or implementation deal will look like. The importance and seriousness of this is highlighted by the strongly worded letter to the Government from the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, EEF—the Manufacturers’ Organisation—and the Federation of Small Businesses. Surely even the most ideological and ardent of Brexiteers recognises the legitimacy of their concerns. With investment being held back, their warnings about the future of the economy must be heeded.

The transition period is now accepted by most as essential. I am happy to call it an implementation period if that helps. I also welcome the Government’s recognition of the so-called divorce bill, without which we cannot make any significant progress. However, the negotiations are complex. The Prime Minister is right to seek out opportunities for more informal discussions as well.

David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, was mocked in the House of Commons last month when he said that no one said Brexit would be easy. Yet that is exactly what Ministers, including him, said. Yesterday, Liam Fox defended his comments that securing a post-Brexit trade deal would be the “easiest in history” because apparently he was talking only about trade and the real problem is politics. Today, Boris Johnson jumped in feet first, as usual, telling EU leaders to “get on with it”. Perhaps Liam Fox is right that politics is the problem—not the politics of the EU, but of the Cabinet. There is no doubt that the progress so far is inadequate for the talks to move on formally to the next stage.

In recognition that some progress has been made, it has been agreed that preliminary talks about the next stage of negotiations should start. In effect, these are talks about talks. That is not, as some in the Cabinet appear to prefer, the EU being difficult; it is quite the opposite. What makes the negotiations harder for the Prime Minister is not the European Union, but her own Cabinet. Every time they speak out to contradict her, every time they speak out to attack the EU, the process or the progress, every time they fly yet another kite about what they think will win them votes in the next Tory leadership election, they seriously weaken her authority and undermine her ability to negotiate. The prime aim of negotiations is clarity about objectives, but for that the Prime Minister needs the Cabinet to unite or to choose one that will.

When Boris Johnson asserts that,

“the entire British cabinet is united around every dot, comma, and syllable of the Florence speech”,

we know he says that in full knowledge of the limits of his own credibility. That is also undermined by the Cabinet Minister quoted today in the press as saying:

“We haven’t grasped the nettle on the trade deal yet and we really have to soon. Theresa’s fear is that the moment we do, half of us will walk out—we just don’t know which half it will be”.


Such division and dysfunction at the heart of government weakens the UK’s position at every single point in negotiations. Given all that, we understand why the withdrawal Bill is now stalled. Can the noble Baroness give us any idea when it will be picked up again and when its Committee stage will start in the House of Commons, given the importance of the issues in the Bill?

On the three issues in the conclusions of the summit, first, we welcome the progress being made on citizens’ rights. It has taken far longer than necessary and the Prime Minister should recognise the urgency and bring it to a conclusion. Secondly, despite the optimism in the Statement, the progress on the Irish border seems a recognition of the issues that have to be resolved rather than a way of resolving them. Agreement on those principles is welcome, even essential, but it is the action that brings those principles into being that is important. What progress has been made on that?

The financial obligations—the divorce bill—are becoming confusing. The Prime Minister put a figure on the financial obligations in her Florence speech. Is there now a recognition that that is not the final word and it has yet to be negotiated? Finally, can the noble Baroness confirm that when David Davis talks about the timetable of the talks being “Barnier’s timetable”, it is in fact the timetable that he agreed back in June? It is as much David Davis’s timetable as it is Michel Barnier’s. I hope the noble Baroness will take the message back to the Cabinet that the frustration—not just of Parliament but of the whole country—with its antics is making it harder for the Prime Minister, and that she will be able to answer the questions I have raised today.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, during the past week the Prime Minister has adopted two novel negotiating tactics. First, she decided on a personal diplomatic mission to the Commission, to be conducted over dinner. Yet according to reports, the meal lasted only just over an hour, which was barely enough time for a leisurely pizza, far less the sort of event that was likely to commend itself to the President of the European Commission. What was the purpose of this event, given its brevity and the lack of any new substantive proposals made at it by the Prime Minister? Secondly, the Prime Minister adopted the stance, “Please give me a good deal because my domestic parliamentary position is so weak”. Is the noble Baroness aware of any successful negotiations in which pleading one’s weakness has strengthened one’s hand? Do the Government really believe that the threat of no deal is credible, when the Brexit Secretary has described it as in effect a negotiating ploy just left on the table for the time being and the Home Secretary has called such an option simply untenable?

One of the first issues debated at the summit was the digital single market. The Prime Minister says that,

“it is right to keep up the pressure on completing its implementation … This will continue to be of benefit to us even after we leave the European Union”.

But we will not be members of the digital single market, so it is inconceivable that we will be as well off in respect of it outside as we would inside. What commitment are the Government prepared to make that, outside the EU, they will adopt the standards and regulations of the digital market so that we will gain the benefit of it?

The Government say that they welcome the EU sanctions on North Korea—as does the whole House. We are shortly to get a sanctions Bill in your Lordships’ House to deal with the position post Brexit, under which we will take control of and have sovereignty over own sanctions, but does the noble Baroness agree that, on matters such as North Korea, such sanctions are effective only if we are in lock-step with the EU so that a common front is presented to the North Koreans, or against whomever else such sanctions are adopted? Have the Government given any thought to what sort of mechanism they will put in place to ensure that, as far as sanctions are concerned, it is possible to adopt that kind of lock-step? At the moment, it is completely unclear how that will be achieved.

The Prime Minister states that, up to now:

“Both sides have approached these talks with professionalism and a constructive spirit—and we should recognise what has been achieved to date”.


That is undoubtedly true, but we should also recognise what has not been achieved to date. Last week should have been the point at which substantive progress had been achieved on the three matters which it had been agreed would be prioritised so that we could get on to discussing the future trading and other relationships with the EU, but the truth is that we are nowhere near that point. At best, we might have reached it by the end of December, in which case substantive negotiations on all future aspects of our relationship will not start until January, a mere few months before those negotiations must be completed.

On citizens’ rights, one of the individual issues that have caused the hold-up, the Government come out with warm words, but why have they not simply given an unequivocal commitment that they will protect in full the rights of all EU citizens now? The Government say that we are making great progress and that we are almost there, but we do not know that and, certainly, the 3 million EU citizens in this country do not believe it. They retain a huge degree of scepticism about their status going forward. This is to be “settled status”, which we are told is going to be done easily and cheaply, but what time period have the Government in mind to grant settled status to more than 3 million EU nationals in this country? What resources are available? Are they satisfied that the Home Office and the Immigration Service have either the track record, the ethos or the resources to do this in a fair and expeditious manner?

On Northern Ireland, the principles are all agreed. We want—the Government want and the Irish want—a frictionless border. However, we have had a customs White Paper which should really have been a Green Paper because it asks as many questions as it answers. It said, for example, that more than 80% of north-south trade was by SMEs and there will be no requirement for customs processes at the land border. That sounds rather reassuring, but the weasel words are “at the land border”. What sort of processes do the Government have in mind not at the land border, and what kind of costs do they think SMEs are going to have to incur to establish these processes? In what degree of detail have the Government, somewhere in their mind, any sense of what these processes might look like?

On the financial settlement, absolutely no progress whatever appears to have been made last week.

Finally, the Prime Minister spent quite a bit of her Statement under the heading “Moving forwards”, which is quite an achievement, given that there has been virtually no moving forwards. She says that she wants to leave in a smooth and orderly way. One key element of leaving in a smooth and orderly way is to transpose all existing EU law into domestic law. The withdrawal Bill, a relatively straight Bill in concept, is totally bogged down because of divisions in the Cabinet. What can the noble Baroness say about when she expects that Bill to start in the Commons, far less here? Because once it has gone through, and with a bit of luck it might be done by Easter, we will have 1,000 statutory instruments to get through before we are in a position to begin to contemplate withdrawal in a smooth and orderly way. There is nothing in this Statement to give any objective observer any sense that smooth and orderly is the way that this Government are heading.

Business of the House

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to detain the House on this matter. The Motion before us looks pretty innocuous and we on this side have no objection to the Government’s proposals.

However, as the noble Baroness has explained, the need for this Motion arises from the fact that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not considered the SI. The reason for that, as we have heard, is that it has not been reconstituted since the general election. Indeed, I believe it has not met since March. The reason for that is because the Commons has not nominated its Members. I fully understand the convention that this House does not criticise the workings of the Commons, and I have no intention of doing so. The delay in this case is caused entirely by the Government’s contentious approach to party balance on all Commons committees, which rightly caused significant political controversy, debate and delay in the other place.

I have three questions for the noble Baroness, as I understand the process in the Commons is slowly cranking into gear. First, will the Government now do all they can to expedite the formation of this very important Joint Committee? Secondly, do the Government have any date in mind when they believe that this will be achieved? Thirdly, how many affirmative resolution statutory instruments are there in the pipeline that we would normally have considered and which have not been able to be brought before this House since the last meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in March?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I concur with the comments made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. This is a really sad state of affairs. I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing this Motion before the House today as it is the right course of action. It is exceptional and urgent, and not to do so would have grave consequences.

Having said that, this is unprecedented. I do not know whether any other noble Lords can recall this happening before; certainly I cannot. On a straw poll of other colleagues, I am not aware that it has ever happened before that the JCSI has not been set up in time for the House to consider business of this kind.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, makes an important point. The Labour names are ready and waiting to set up this committee. The only thing holding it up is that the Government have failed to do so. So it is right that we consider this today, but it is an emergency situation; it is unprecedented and can only be exceptional. In this case, I think the noble Baroness has to speak for the Government and not just for the House of Lords. She has to tell us when the committee will be set up and assure us that it will not happen again and another such Motion will not come before this House.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their interventions. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: standing orders are very rarely suspended, and only when there is agreement to do so does it happen. She is absolutely right that this is a case when it needs to happen, and I thank the House for its appreciation of that. As I said, the nomination of Commons Members to serve on Joint Committees is a matter for the usual channels in the House of Commons and I cannot say anything further on that, but this House has made its views very clear and I hope the Commons will hear them.

Brexit: UK Plans

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is the first day back and we are discussing Brexit already. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, although I admit I felt an increasing sense of déjà vu as she went through it—probably I was not the only one. So much of it is vague and repeats previous speeches, Statements and comments that we have heard before.

At the outset, I want to pick up on one specific aspect. The noble Baroness will know of my interest in it from when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and I faced each other across the Dispatch Box on Home Office legislation. I listened carefully to the section on security—it is so vague and unspecific that it tells us absolutely nothing about priorities for negotiations or expected outcomes. Given the importance of the issue, we need more than that; phrases such as “bold, new strategic agreements” and “comprehensive frameworks” have been said time and again, but at this stage I do not know what they mean. I want to flag that up early on.

The noble Baroness mentioned the two White Papers that were published today—one is on the customs Bill. Is she aware that there are only 10 copies—nine now, because I have one—available to Members of the House of Lords? That seems entirely inappropriate and I hope she can look into it. Can she also say something about the consultation period? Cabinet Office guidelines indicate about 12 weeks as the norm for consultation, yet this paper—and similarly in the one on trade—has no deadline for consultation except to say that responses are encouraged on this by 3 November. That is less than four weeks away, and the other deadline is 6 November. That does not seem appropriate. I assume that if responses are encouraged by those dates, they are also the deadline for responses to be considered, and negotiations. I would be grateful if she could comment on those two points.

This is a hugely significant point in negotiations, the importance of which cannot be overestimated. On the day Article 50 was invoked, the countdown started for the UK to leave the EU. Only one thing was clear: two years is a very short time to ensure that we resolve all the issues relating to Brexit and our future relationship with the EU, including on trade, security, finance and our domestic regulations and legislation for public protection. We are around a third of the way through and it seems that too little significant progress has been made. Within days, we should have clarity on whether sufficient progress has been made in phase 1, to allow us to proceed to phase 2 in a couple of weeks’ time, or if negotiations will have to be delayed.

It is clear that the Prime Minister’s visit to Florence was designed to break the deadlock, and her speech was important for a number of reasons. First, it was the first time that she had accepted the need for a transitional phase—she prefers “implementation” phase; I do not care what it is called, but her recognition that such a period was required was important. Recognising the problems ahead, she tried to use the speech to jump-start the negotiations by supporting talks on a transitional, or implementation, deal.

We have always been clear, especially given the number of issues on which there is no certainty, that to prevent a Brexit cliff edge for our economy we must negotiate a time-limited transitional deal that maintains the same basic terms as we currently have with the EU. That means remaining in a customs union with the EU and within the single market while we build the bridge about which the Prime Minister spoke to a strong final deal. I welcome her commitment on that, but any negotiations should start from where we are now. Ruling out options at the start is like trying to operate with one arm tied behind our back.

This pragmatic approach has been welcomed by many of those organisations, including the CBI and trade unions, which fear the impact on businesses and jobs of a cliff-edge exit. It was a significant policy shift for the Prime Minister. She rightly recognised the warnings from businesses that opposition to transitional arrangements was already hitting the economy. Both the head of UBS Investment Bank and the chairman of RBS, and many others, have reinforced the message that unless transitional arrangements are agreed soon, there will be a significant shift of both staff and businesses out of the UK. Yet within days of the Prime Minister’s welcome comment, five of her Cabinet Ministers revealed conflicting and contradictory views. It is no surprise that the list of names is probably very similar to that for the next Conservative leadership contest. I am sure that many share the view that, following a disastrous election campaign which has weakened the Prime Minister at a time when, in the national interest, she has to be at her strongest, she is being further undermined by members of her Cabinet.

The Prime Minister’s speech was also part of her pitch that on the three key phase 1 issues, progress had been made and that progress was adequate for phase 2 to proceed. It will be a huge failure of government strategy if those talks are delayed. The Prime Minister is right that some progress has been made on the three issues, but the question is whether it is enough. It is clear from last week’s events in Strasbourg that the EU does not think that it is.

Let us look at those three issues. For those of us who voted in your Lordships’ House before the negotiations started on arrangements for EU nationals and the consequences for UK nationals in the EU, it is disappointing that this issue has not been resolved. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointing around the Chamber and muttering. Unless he wishes to comment, I will continue. Businesses and academia are already experiencing some of the difficulties that we feared. The lack of agreement means that both here and across the EU, British and European Union citizens feel their lives blighted by uncertainty. Many in your Lordships’ House and the other place were persuaded by the Government not to vote for our Article 50 amendment, as the Government had promised that this was an early priority and would be resolved at the start of negotiations. The Government might find it harder to earn such trust in the future.

On the matter of the Irish border, there is an agreement on the required outcome, but the Government have been unable to say how it can be achieved. Initial proposals for a “technical solution” have been ridiculed by experts. A leaked report by the Irish Revenue Commissioners sets out in stark detail the vast increase in the amount of resources and bureaucracy that may result from Brexit, which will be significant at all levels and for all communities. Not only do the Revenue Commissioners warn that an open border will be impossible from a customs perspective but they even expect the important annual ploughing championships to be hit. That will affect the quarter of a million people who attend that event, and it makes a serious point about the possibility of additional paperwork being needed for machinery imported from the UK.

On the third issue—agreeing a formula for the “divorce bill”—not only is there no agreement with the EU but there is no agreement within the Cabinet either. Depending on your point of view, Boris Johnson is either an unprincipled, gaffe-prone Minister who shoots from the hip or a first-rate diplomatic Foreign Secretary. But even he has had to retreat from telling the EU to “go whistle” to accepting the need for an agreed formula and for quick progress to be made.

There is a debate to be had on whether progress is adequate to proceed to the next stage. The Prime Minister’s confidence about this is not widely shared. A war of words seeking to apportion blame will not make it any easier, but discussion and negotiation will, as will honesty and openness about the sticking points and difficulties. It is therefore all the more worrying that two Conservative Party Members of the European Parliament, a former chief whip and a deputy leader, who were honest enough to express their view and vote accordingly that progress was not yet sufficient, have been suspended from their party. That does not inspire confidence that these issues are being examined with an open mind.

I have three specific questions for the noble Baroness. Your Lordships’ House will have seen the joint statement from the TUC and CBI on citizens’ rights. The Prime Minister said in her Statement that she expected a quick agreement, but we have heard that before. Can she be more specific? Can the noble Baroness confirm that the UK negotiating team expects an agreement on citizens’ rights this week, thus concluding phase 1 of the negotiations? If not, will the Government keep an open mind, as urged by your Lordships’ House and now by many others, including the CBI and the TUC?

Secondly, returning to last week’s events in the European Parliament, it was significant that both President Juncker and Monsieur Barnier have addressed MEPs, as they do regularly. The Prime Minister has had an opportunity to do so and has not accepted the invitation. Given the possibility of a delay to phase 2, will the Prime Minister now reconsider the invitation for her to do the same?

Finally, if the Prime Minister’s Florence speech is really to break the impasse, it is clear that we must overcome the sticking point that is the financial settlement. I am not asking for details of figures, but have the UK’s negotiators been permitted to discuss potential figures at this week’s talks? I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to address those questions as well as the points made about the two White Papers published today.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, since our debate in September on the Government’s so-called position papers, there have been three developments. First, we had the Florence speech, of which this Statement is a précis. Secondly, we had the Prime Minister’s conference speech, which was noticeable for the fact that less than 5% of it was devoted to the most important issue facing the country; namely, Brexit. Thirdly, we have had an extraordinary degree of infighting among members of the Cabinet. Many of us have lived through periods when there has been infighting within our own parties, and we know what it means: it becomes all-consuming; it becomes completely debilitating. That is the state of the Government today.

As I said, the Statement is a précis of the speech made by the Prime Minister in Florence, which, in her own terms, was intended to move the negotiations forward. How does it fare in doing that? It starts by talking about the economic partnership, which is to be “unique and ambitious”. The rest of the section simply sets out what the Government will not do. It says nothing about what the Government intend this to be. This is the first of what one might call “the ball in whose court?” issues. The Government say, “We’re not having this; we’re not having that; we’re not having the other”. The assumption is that somebody will come up with a solution, but not them. Certainly, there is no suggestion in the Statement of what the solution might be.

Ditto the security relationship. The phrase there is that there is to be a partnership that will be,

“unprecedented in its breadth and depth, taking in cooperation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development”.

We wait to see what that might mean, but that is it. We then move on to the next phase, implementation. The Government have accepted that there has to be an implementation phase, and there is to be a two-year standstill. The Government should not take any great credit for this. It is impossible to move from our current position in the EU to a new position without an implementation or transition phase. All they have done is accept the inevitable with extraordinary bad grace.

Half way through the Statement, the Prime Minister marks her success in the Florence speech. She says that it was extremely successful and that Michel Barnier said,

“there is a ‘new dynamic’ in the negotiations”.

Well, there is a new dynamic for the Secretary of State—he is staying put. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is not going to Brussels today, and has not been, so all his input, at most, this week as in the past, is going to be some kind of Panglossian statement on Thursday afternoon, when he has just whizzed in, which will be immediately contradicted, no doubt, by Michel Barnier.

The Statement then gets back to the substance, the three big issues, of which Northern Ireland is the first. The Government say that we and the EU,

“have both stated explicitly we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border”.

The problem here is that nobody—not this Government, not the Irish Government, not the EU, not a think tank, not a lawyer, not a company—knows how you can be without the customs union without some kind of border control. There is not a soul on the planet who has come up with a viable proposal for dealing with that, so how can the Government believe that they are making progress there, or that they could get a quick outcome?

We then come to the EU budget, where we want to make a contribution,

“to cover our fair share of the costs involved”.

What does “fair” mean? It is a very interesting word, but the Government give zero indication of what it means. Does the EU have any idea what our view of fair is? If it does, it is certainly something that has not slipped out from anybody in Brussels or in this Government.

We now come to legislation and the two White Papers that have been published today. I have not had a chance to look at them, but I have just one question for the noble Baroness. On customs, we are about to create “an innovative customs system”. It sounds great, but is she aware that, as we speak, HMRC is in the process of reducing regional and local offices so that the ports of East Anglia, Harwich and Felixstowe, are about to be managed from Stratford, in east London? I accept that this is, indeed, innovative, but it does not fill me with any confidence that the Government have even the vaguest idea how they are going to implement a new customs regime.

Finally, we come to the conclusion, which is that, as we look to the next stage,

“the ball is in their court. But I am optimistic it”—

I do not know whether that is the ball—

“will receive a positive response”.

What is “it”? On too many issues there simply is not an “it”: there are simply vacuous statements and pious exhortations. With parliamentary Liberal Democrat colleagues I spent a couple of days in Brussels during the recent Recess attempting to find out what was really happening in the negotiations. We met representatives from the Council and UKREP, other permanent representatives, MEPs and many others. Everybody, with the inevitable exception of UKREP, was at a loss as to what the UK was really after. It was not that they were objecting to what we were after; they simply had no clue. There was no beef, as they saw it, in the negotiations. Today’s Statement, I am afraid, suggests that on current trends they are likely to be kept waiting for this beef for quite a long time.

G20

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, from a number of reports I have read, this seems to have been quite a challenging G20 meeting, but the Prime Minister’s Statement strikes an extremely optimistic note about future trade relationships—she spoke about “exciting opportunities”. It is clear that, for her, our role in the global economy and trade relationships and trade deals following Brexit were high on her agenda.

The Statement refers to the bilateral meetings with America, Japan, India and China. We have had reports of that meeting with President Trump. I understand that the Prime Minister claimed to be “optimistic” that President Trump could be taken at his word regarding a swift trade deal with the UK. Let us remind ourselves of what President Trump said, because, as we know, he never knowingly understates a case:

“There is no country that could possibly be closer than our countries. We have been working on a trade deal which will be a very, very big deal, a very powerful deal, great for both countries and … we will have that done very, very quickly”.


Yet the experienced Canadian negotiator who dealt with the Canada-US trade agreement described that statement as “political puffery”. As well as understanding the complexities of international trade deals, the President would have to consult Congress, which would have to take at least six months to consider the issue. Is that the Prime Minister’s understanding as well? It would be helpful to have some clarity and detail about those discussions, as well as about the timescale that the Prime Minister discussed with the President given his quite emphatic statements. We also need assurances that, in her eagerness to ensure a deal, we do not negotiate away the protections that we have gained—for example, for the environment, for employees and for food safety—that have served this country well.

Many of us may have heard the report a few weeks ago on Radio 4—I think that it was on the “Today” programme—about American poultry farmers who, post Brexit, want to export their chickens and turkeys to the UK. US standards allow chemicals in production that we in this country do not consider safe or appropriate. We have to maintain our high standards, so assurances on that issue would be welcome.

Is the noble Baroness able to provide some more information on the other bilateral discussions with Japan, China and India, which do not seem to have received the same attention? At the last G20 meeting in September, following our bilateral with Japan, the Japanese Prime Minister issued a 15-page document on its specific concerns regarding a trade relationship. When the Japanese returned to the bilateral at this meeting, did they discuss that document and have those concerns been addressed? Last time, the Prime Minister was unable to say whether they had discussed car manufacturing. Is the noble Baroness able to do so today, particularly with reference to any financial assurances that have been given for the post-Brexit era? Also, the Statement referred to a meeting today—not at the G20 but today—and discussions at No. 10 with the Australian Prime Minister. I am not quite sure why that is in the Statement: it does not seem any different from the casual assurances and statements made at last year’s meeting, but seems to be just a repetition of an ambition, at some point in the future, post Brexit, to do a trade deal. Can the noble Baroness tell us what those discussions were today and why that is in the Statement?

Staying with trade issues, the Statement refers to the risks created by the dumping of steel on global markets. One report at the weekend said that UK officials acted as a go-between during the disagreement between the US and China over the alleged overproduction of steel. The Statement refers to calls to remove excess capacity in steel from global markets. The noble Baroness may recall that the steel industry in this country was desperate for the Government to back European intervention to protect our steel industry from being destroyed by imported steel, yet the UK Government at that time refused to act. Therefore, I am curious now about the role the UK played as a so-called go-between. Can she enlighten us on that?

On economic issues, the declaration raises a number of matters under the heading “Building Resilience”. Mark Carney, who is also the chair of the G20 financial stability board, has warned about the continued economic risks to the UK banking sector. While the UK’s financial stability remains resilient, there are a number of worrying trends; specifically, the increase in consumer credit, which at more than 10% is outstripping household income. The ratio of household debt to income is high by historic standards. Is this the case across the G20, and was this considered at the summit?

On counterterrorism, which was the first issue the Prime Minister raised in her Statement, the noble Baroness will be aware that I have returned to this issue many times to express concerns about how our leaving the EU improves our serious and organised crime and counterterrorism operations and investigations. Obviously, we welcome any successful co-operation on counterterrorism, including tackling the funding of extremism. In the Statement the Prime Minister says that:

“The UK is leading the way”.


Does she understand and recognise that part of leading the way is through the co-operative work we lead and are part of within the EU? What consideration has been given to post-Brexit negotiations on this issue? Given that the Statement refers to tackling the funding of such activities as being key—the noble Baroness will be aware that this issue has also been raised many times in your Lordships’ House—when will the Government release the report into the foreign funding of extremism and radicalism in the UK?

Before she met President Trump the Prime Minister said she would raise with him his personal attacks on Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London. The President’s attacks on the mayor on Twitter were extraordinary. What the mayor said, in reassuring people after the horrific terrorist incident in London, was “You have no need to be alarmed about additional police and armed police on our streets; they are there for your safety”. This was a perfectly reasonable and responsible comment to make. The President attacked him constantly on this on Twitter and the Prime Minister said that she would raise that directly with the President. Did she do so? The Observer newspaper reported that she failed to do it. If that is true, and given that she said she would, can the Minister assure us that she is seeking another opportunity to do so? The mayor was speaking and acting for Londoners at a difficult time and should not be attacked for doing so by a foreign leader.

Finally, my favourite film is “Casablanca”. Bear with me—it might not seem relevant but I am getting there. One of my favourite scenes, and the saddest, has Rick saying goodbye to Ilsa at the airport as she leaves with her husband to continue their work trying to save France from the Nazis. Rick tells her not to worry, saying, “We’ll always have Paris”. When the Paris agreement on climate change was signed last year, to great acclaim, I am sure that I was not the only who thought of that scene. To protect the world from climate change, we’ll always have Paris. But will we? Nineteen of the 20 countries remain committed. But President Trump’s rejection is a bitter blow. In the Statement, the Prime Minister said that she raised this personally with President Trump but I understand that she did not raise it in the bilateral, which was the appropriate and proper place to do so. So how and when did she raise it? I hope it was not an informal chat over a cup of tea later on. It is all very well being “dismayed”, as the Prime Minister said in the Statement, but if our close relationship with President Trump is to be meaningful, it has to be two-way and it has to have an honesty about it. If she did not discuss it with the President in that informal meeting, did she talk to, support or advise President Macron in any way, and thank him for taking a lead on this issue? What are the implications of the US rejection of the agreement?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. “Casablanca” is also one of my favourite films. I think the line that the Prime Minister takes from it is, “Play it again”, because the use of exceptionalist phraseology is played again and again in prime ministerial responses to this kind of international gathering.

I suspect that this summit will not be remembered for any great new international agreements, for there were none. But it is possible that historians will look back on it as marking the end of US primacy in world affairs and the point at which the US accepted tacitly the Russian strategy of regional hegemony, to which there was no opposition, as far as one could see, in the long meeting between President Trump and President Putin. I suspect that at the end of those two hours it was President Putin who was smiling behind his hand, rather than his opposite number. The change in the balance of power in the world was evidenced by the summit’s communiqué, which made no attempt whatever to hide the differences between the US and the rest of the world on climate change. I was intrigued when the Prime Minister said that she urged President Trump to rejoin the Paris agreement and that she hopes that he will do so. Has she any reason to believe that this is even a slim possibility?

Many of the issues debated at the summit were worthy and important and it is a great sign of progress that we have the 20 most important countries in the world discussing issues in a constructive manner, whether it is security, migration, modern slavery or women’s empowerment. Modest baby steps forward were taken on all those issues. However, listening to the Statement, one cannot but be struck by the lack of progress on—or even mention of—some of world’s flashpoints; for example, there is nothing about the Middle East or North Korea. Clearly, this is to be regretted.

On our own domestic agenda, the summit did discuss trade, where again the US is in danger of taking a unilateral line which would weaken the world trading system. But clearly the key trade issues for the UK relate to Brexit. The Prime Minister met the leaders of America, Japan, China and India, all of whom, we are told, expressed an interest in having new bilateral trading relationships with Britain post-Brexit. The situation in respect of Japan is particularly concerning. Japan has just signed a deal with the EU which covers 19% of all world trade. It took four years to negotiate and along with the traditional tariff reductions, there are major new levels of co-operation on standards, regulation and opening up public procurement markets. What is rather chilling is the thought expressed by a leading commentator in today’s papers that unless the UK replicates the EU’s trade agreement with Japan, Japan will have a closer trading relationship with the EU than we will. Even if we replicate it, there is a major challenge to the British motor industry if we are not inside the customs union. First, Japanese direct investment is likely to go to the EU, and, secondly, rules of origin mean that unless 50% of a product is made in the country, it does not qualify for free entry into the other country. How many motor cars made in the UK have 50% of their parts made in the UK? Very few. I wonder how the Government hope and expect to be able to, at worst, replicate the trade agreement now entered into or coming into force between Japan and the EU.

As far as America is concerned, the Prime Minister seems to take President Trump at his word when he says we are going to have a terrific, new, quick trade agreement. She is the only person in the world to do so. The rest of the world just does not think it is doable. Even if were doable, it is very noticeable that the EEF has said today that the damage caused by the kind of Brexit being pursued by the Government would not be made up any potential trade deal with the US. Equally, this very weekend we had the head of the German industrial federation saying that, as far as he and Germany are concerned, trade with Britain will be second to protecting the single market and the four freedoms. So how do the Government think they are going to be able to protect trade in a situation where they are not prepared to contemplate the single market or the customs union at a time when, as the ONS pointed out this very day, some 2 million people working in Britain today owe their jobs to direct investment from the EU? That investment is jeopardised by the Government’s stance.

This was an eminently forgettable summit for the UK. The major challenges to our well-being, whether in terms of the economy, security or influence, stem from Brexit, and here the Prime Minister certainly has a lot of work to do.

European Council

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The European Council focused on work being undertaken across the EU to protect its citizens in counterterrorism, security and defence, external borders and illegal migration, and economic development. These are clearly issues on which co-operation at the highest levels is essential and a key priority for the EU. It must be hard for the Prime Minister at such Council meetings, because although on those specific issues our priorities are shared, this country’s priority is not how EU members tackle those together in the future. A quick glance at the Government’s programme in the Queen’s Speech shows that they are going to be preoccupied with Brexit throughout this Session, so I am a bit curious about the Prime Minister’s role at these summits. Our joint work across the EU, on which the UK has taken a lead, on tackling serious and organised crime, including terrorism, is essential. We share common goals, and in order to be effective we must have joint responsibility. However, as the EU discusses future work, it is our priority—and this will take the attention of our Prime Minister—not to be part of that work.

Given the seriousness of those issues, what was the Prime Minister able to say to the Council meeting on both defence and security about the UK response and responsibilities? Specifically, did she take part in discussions on the improvements of the European travel and authorisation system to enhance external border controls? Will that be taken into account in discussions about how to manage the border with Ireland to ensure that there are no changes from the current position? At the weekend, in a TV interview that others may have seen, the Brexit Secretary made some suggestions about how that could be managed. I have to say that he sounded unconvincing, even to himself. He should understand the need for clarity on this issue as soon as possible, but instead he spoke about issues such as monitors on cars and number plate recognition. The Irish border is not like the Dartford tunnel. This has to be resolved as a matter of urgency.

I want to pick up the issue of digital Europe. Is it not something of an irony that while the European Council was discussing an overarching approach to digital issues, including cybersecurity, our own parliamentary network was under sustained attack? I think the whole House will want to thank all our staff who have sought to resolve the problem and assist colleagues. Given that the digital economy knows no physical boundaries, and that UK exports of services are an important growth area of our economy, I would be interested to know what contributions the Prime Minister was able to make on this specific issue.

There was considerable discussion at the Council of the single market and trade, recognising the benefits and addressing areas where improvements are needed. One of the issues discussed was the European Fund for Strategic Investments. In the Council’s conclusions there is a call for rapid agreement on the extension and reinforcement of that fund.

That fund has provided £184 million for the northern powerhouse investment fund. I know that the noble Baroness and the Prime Minister have previously been clear that we are in until we are out and that we remain a full and functioning member of the EU until Brexit negotiations are concluded. Given the importance of that particular investment, can the noble Baroness assure us that no part of it will be lost to Brexit, and what advice would she give regarding further applications to the fund from the UK?

Turning to EU agencies, the background note stated that the EU 27 were to agree the procedure regarding the relocation of the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority from the UK as a consequence of Brexit. There are several issues to be addressed. I understand why the EU has pushed the decision on relocation back to November, but for the UK these issues are live and need to be addressed now. I understand that more than 1,000 staff are employed in those two agencies. Can the noble Baroness confirm that? Do the Government know how many UK staff are employed by other EU agencies and the status of their position?

Outside the EU, we will need mechanisms, organisations or quangos to undertake the functions of those bodies and the other EU agencies of which we will no longer be part. We are all aware of the significant public safety issues that can arise and the economic implications that flow from effective regulation. Has any estimate been made of the cost involved in establishing new structures or agencies, what form they will take and how long it will be before we set them up? If we look at the European Medicines Agency alone and the importance of pharmaceuticals to public health and the economy, surely the Government must have a plan in place to address those issues. I think particularly of pharmaceutical companies, which currently invest significant amounts in research and development here in the UK because they want access to those European markets. Can the noble Baroness share the Government’s initial thinking on this issue with us?

Finally, we come to the point about certainty for EU and UK nationals. From the background notes to the Council meeting, it is clear that there was a short space at the end of the dinner on Thursday and before the session for the rest of the EU members on Brexit where the PM had the opportunity to “inform the leaders” about Brexit negotiations. As predicted, this issue has caused tensions. I have not yet had time, as I am sure other noble Lords have not, to digest all the implications of the new documents, but others across the EU apparently do not share the PM’s confidence that there was a “very positive” response. Reading the comments of other leaders, I would describe them as being underwhelmed but clearly open to further discussion.

I have had a brief look at the document. It seems quite complicated, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reading out some of the details. It seems that the Government have now come round to the idea of an identity card, although I am not clear exactly how it will work when the only people who will carry them are EU nationals residing in the UK. The noble Baroness talked about a light-touch approach, but it seems grossly inefficient and disrespectful that 180,000 people who have applied for permanent residency will now have to apply again under the new system. Surely there is a better way to resolve that for those people.

I also understand that under the new arrangements there will have to be an assessment of conduct and criminality. Is the noble Baroness sure that all those can be undertaken within the two years between now and the exit from the EU? If some of them will be undertaken later, what guarantees have been made about access to EU databases so that the accuracy of that information can be checked?

We are talking about citizens from the other 27 EU countries living in the UK whose rights we seek to protect. There are also UK citizens living across the other 27 countries, many of whom have reacted with dismay to the Prime Minister’s comments. But there is also a third group. There are about 60 million UK citizens living here in the UK who will also have their rights affected. All these discussions focus on the rights of those who are already established here in the UK, or on UK citizens already living and working in one of the other 27 countries. But the future impact on UK citizens who want to travel, live and work abroad must also be addressed. Will they need visas? Will they need work permits? The Select Committee report on acquired rights is very helpful on some of these issues.

When your Lordships’ House agreed to the amendments on the Article 50 Bill, by a majority of 102, to protect the rights of EU citizens, it was not because we were being difficult or, as some claimed, trying to oppose Brexit. It was precisely because we recognised, as did the Select Committee report, that this is a difficult issue, and resolving it in a simple and straightforward way would not only give certainty but would ensure negotiations to proceed on key issues in a better tone and a better atmosphere.

The Government worked hard to make sure that that amendment was not agreed by the House of Commons. There were meetings at Downing Street and promises were made that this would be resolved quickly as an early priority, all in pursuit of a so-called clean Bill. I have to say that I wonder whether this House would vote the same way on that amendment.

As we have heard, nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed, so meanwhile there is a twilight zone of uncertainty for many. That is already having an impact. We have heard from the Nursing and Midwifery Council that there has been a 96% reduction in the number of nurses from the EU registering to work in the UK since the referendum. How many of our citizens have lost out on work in the EU?

The new editor of the Evening Standard said that all Cabinet Ministers backed David Cameron in wanting to address this issue immediately after the referendum result, but the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, held out against it. Perhaps the EU’s proposal should have been used as a starting point for the Prime Minister to try to resolve these issues.

Finally, I appreciate that these issues are difficult for the Prime Minister. I was struck by President Tusk’s comments at the end of the Council meeting. He said:

“Brexit took up very little time at this European Council. We devoted most of our work to addressing people’s concerns over security, illegal migration and uncontrolled globalisation”.


These are the concerns of citizens everywhere, and a challenge for the Prime Minister is to make sure that these issues, plus jobs and the economy, remain at the top of our agenda for the UK while she negotiates Brexit.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The two principal issues debated at the Council that are of relevance to the UK were, first, security and, secondly, citizens’ rights.

On security, the Prime Minister rather patted herself on the back that she had taken the lead in having had discussions with President Macron and then, at the Council itself, in moving the technology companies to responding more effectively to extremist content. It is clear that whatever happens over the coming months in respect of the technology companies, the area of security, which faces the whole of Europe, will not become less of a priority or less of a concern. My question for the Government is: what plans do they have to have a continuing voice on European discussions on security? They will not be at the EU table. Will they put proposals to the EU about how they will have a continuing voice in European security discussions? If we lose that voice it will undoubtedly be the case that the UK will be less secure.

The biggest area of interest for the UK, not so much in the summit but subsequently, is around citizens’ rights. We have now seen the Government’s paper. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, when your Lordships’ House debated this issue four months ago, it took the view that the UK should unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK. We on these Benches continue to believe that the Government should unilaterally guarantee EU nationals the right to stay in the UK now. It is to be regretted that it has taken so long for the Government to attempt to provide any certainty about their future status. The very fact that the Government have today announced a series of issues and proposals that are dependent on reciprocal decisions by the EU means that there is still no certainty or clarity for EU citizens living in this country.

I turn to some of the specific proposals in the Government’s document today. First, there is still no specified cut-off date. Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government have left that open and, in doing so, extended the uncertainty of people who are thinking about whether they might come from the EU to the UK at some point over the next couple of years, when they could have made a decision to specify the date today? At what point and by what process do the Government plan to announce a cut-off date?

Secondly, it is not clear how long the application process for residence status will take. We know about the huge backlogs in dealing with such questions at the moment. Do the Government plan to resource the relevant agencies properly so that applications, albeit in their cut-down form, can be dealt with speedily? What assessment have the Government made of how many EU citizens currently resident in the UK will need to apply for the new residence status?

The Government talk about avoiding a cliff edge at the point at which EU citizens cease to be able to settle freely in the UK, and propose a two-year period during which there will be a generic umbrella of temporary leave to remain. Do the two years apply to the period during which EU citizens must apply for residence status, or do the Government envisage that we will have processed all requests for residence status within the two years—and, indeed, that everybody wishing to achieve that status will need to have achieved it by the end of the two-year period?

The document states:

“Obtaining settled status will be subject to meeting certain requirements. The eligibility criteria will be set out in UK law”.


Could the Leader of the House give some further idea of what sort of requirements are envisaged? Will the UK law referred to be in primary or secondary legislation? Is this what is envisaged to be covered in the new immigration Bill and, if so, when do the Government plan to publish that Bill?

Finally, to take up another point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, today’s documents states that:

“Obtaining documentation showing their settled status will enable EU citizens resident here to carry on living here lawfully”.


But it then states about that documentation:

“The Home Office may also need to capture evidence of EU citizens’ biometric information during the application process”.


That raises concerns that what is being proposed is ID cards just for EU nationals with settled status. Can the Government guarantee that this new status will not require EU nationals who receive it to carry documentation signalling their status and this will not amount to an ID card? If there were to be some kind of ID card, could the Leader of the House set out how much the Government would expect such a policy might cost and how they might expect it to work—particularly given that it would result in only a small minority of those living in the UK being required to carry such cards?

This Statement and the policy paper begin to answer the many questions that EU citizens have about their future status in the UK, but it leaves many unanswered. The Government need to answer those questions quickly to bring about the certainty that they claim to seek.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I can certainly assure the noble Lord that fees and charges are being looked at as part of the negotiations. I can only repeat that our aim is to offer a streamlined and high-quality service for everyone and to keep fees at a reasonable level.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am sorry to return to the noble Baroness, but I asked two questions on settled status that she was not able to address. First, can we do anything better than ask 180,000 people who have already applied to apply again under the new status, alongside the costs that that will incur for them? Secondly, will all the applications be dealt with in two years and, if not, are the Government guaranteed access to EU databases to get the information required? The Minister did not answer either of those questions, and if she is unable to do so today, will she write to me?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I apologise, and am happy to write to the noble Baroness.

Grenfell Tower

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this very comprehensive Statement, with lots of information in there. She will understand that it also begs a number of questions, and I hope that she will be able to answer them today—but, if she is not, I shall be happy for her to write to me.

First, it is right that we recognise the almost unspeakable horror of the fire in which so many have lost lives, friends, family, their homes and all their possessions; it is a tragedy on an almost unimaginable scale. If you listen to those who are affected, it is clear that it is never going to leave them; it will stay with them for the rest of their lives. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that the support is not just for today or tomorrow—it is long-term support that we are talking about.

I also place on record our huge gratitude to the emergency services—the medical staff, police and, particularly, the fire and rescue services, which went above and beyond the call of duty. I understand from those who have seen and heard the recordings from the fire engines when they arrived at the fire, they could not believe what they were going to. They were saying, “How in the something or other are we ever going to get into that building to rescue people?”. Those were the comments that they were making as they arrived. There was no structural engineer on site at that point, so they had no way of knowing whether it was safe to go into that building or not—but they went in. Many years ago, I did some fire service training as a fire authority member, and I have done a mock-up wearing breathing apparatus. That was in safe conditions, but I know something of how terrifying it must be for those who arrive at such a scene, and the bravery of those men and women who attended the fire. No words can express how grateful we and others are to them.

The response from the local community and the public was almost overwhelming, such was the scale of the horror of what they witnessed. However, as the noble Baroness has said, the response from the local council was nothing short of appalling and a disaster. I pay tribute to the other London boroughs which do not have the wealth or resources or the financial reserves of Kensington and Chelsea but which went to the aid and assistance of people outside their borough to do what they could to help—and they seemed better able to provide some of the support that was needed. The noble Baroness made the point that the council was certainly not up to responding to residents’ needs.

I welcome the inquiry, which is a step forward. The noble Baroness is right to say that there should be an interim report—one hopes by the summer—but, as well as the other issues that it addresses, can it address the wider issues of accountability? The management of that block was outsourced to a private company, which does not seem—and this will be borne out by the inquiry—to have had any direct relationship with the residents so that the residents could force it to respond or have any accountability process. That should be looked at as part of the wider issues.

I note in the Queen’s Speech that the Government have taken up the proposal from my noble friend Lord Wills of a public advocate. It would seem that the quicker we can have somebody in place to advise those who want to play a role and be involved in the inquiry, the better. I hope that we can look at that ASAP.

Clearly, this is a fast-moving situation, with new information and details emerging all the time. I appreciate that government and local councils want to reassure people, but we can reassure people only if they are genuinely safe; people cannot be reassured unless the necessary checks have been undertaken and any changes have been made so that people are safe. Shortly after the Prime Minister gave her Statement to the House of Commons, we heard the alarming news that, when in the Statement today she mentioned that a “number” of high-rise tower blocks were affected, up to 600 in England alone could have combustible cladding installed. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the figure of around 600 is correct? If it is, when did that figure become known to the Government? What action are the Government taking? If there are 600 blocks of flats in England alone in that situation, the scale of the work to be done is just enormous. The Downing Street spokeswoman said earlier today that:

“Obviously nobody will be living in buildings that are unsafe. They will be rehoused if they need to be and landlords will be asked to provide alternative accommodation where that’s possible”.


If 600 blocks are affected, I am not sure that the checks can done as quickly as that. If 100 blocks can be checked today, it will still be quite a long time before all blocks are checked and any work is undertaken. If those people are to be rehoused, it will be more than a million people. There must be some contingency plans for the Government to work with local councils on that, because this clearly seems to be beyond the scale of most local authorities’ ability to cope. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether that figure is correct, when the Government knew and what action is being taken?

I have a couple of questions on resources for local authorities. This is clearly going to be an expensive business—rightly so—for local authorities to undertake properly, so are local authorities guaranteed the resources to carry out any necessary additional checks? What conversations or discussions have there been between central government and the private companies that have supplied and fitted such cladding on to high-rise blocks? There is an issue about whether all housing providers have been alerted by those companies that fitted such cladding. The inquiry is welcome, but the noble Baroness is right to say that we do not have to wait to take action. After the previous fire that we saw in 2009, I gather that the coroner’s recommendations were made in 2013 to the Department for Communities and Local Government about retrofitting sprinklers—those recommendations could be acted on now. We would be grateful if the noble Baroness could respond on that.

When the Prime Minister was asked in the House of Commons about whether the buildings were compliant with building regulations, she said that the police and fire services were investigating and would report in 24 hours. That is a reasonable response in terms of the buildings that we are talking about, but the legal position regarding that kind of cladding on high-rise buildings is not a matter for the fire and rescue service or the police to investigate; the Government must know whether or not the building regulations allow it. Can the noble Baroness respond immediately on that? I cannot see why we have to wait 24 hours for a statement from the fire and rescue services, because whether the building regulations do or do not allow it should be a matter of fact. In terms of this particular block, there were building regulations inspections. Were faults found during those inspections and, if they were, was action taken to remedy the faults? It is clear that there were complaints beforehand.

I have one final point: a Minister commented to me a while ago regarding deregulation that the Government’s policy was that you had to have three regulations out before you could bring another one in. We all know that society does not like to be overregulated—nobody wants unnecessary red tape—but that seems to not look at the value of regulation; it is a numerical chance exercise. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether that is the case? I would be delighted if it was not, but if that is still government policy, surely it should be reviewed. We should regard regulations on their merit, not on the number of regulations, which is completely irrelevant in terms of safety for society.

The Statement is comprehensive and welcome. As times goes on, there will be some challenging, difficult and perhaps uncomfortable truths to be faced about how society operates and how it treats poorer people, particularly with regard to housing. This is a disaster beyond anything we could have ever contemplated. If lessons are not learned from this, we will be doing the public an enormous disservice.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the extremely comprehensive Statement. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who lost their lives in the tragedy; our sympathies are, of course, with all those residents who will have to rebuild their lives after such a horrific event and with the families of those affected. I also put on record again the huge debt of gratitude that we owe to those in the fire service and all the emergency services who worked tirelessly to rescue residents and support families in the immediate circumstances of the fire, and in the almost as bad circumstances of having to sift through the building day after day to see what they could find in the wreckage.

There was a huge gulf in the response to this tragedy between the public and the Government. The public acted immediately and with great generosity. Government, both national and local, acted slowly and, initially at least, without the same energy or generosity. It took the Government 48 hours to establish a central command centre, for example, and the borough council seemed unprepared and overwhelmed. If this had been a terrorist attack, the response would have been far more effective—we saw that in London only a few days ago. Things that have, for example, taken 48 hours in this case, would, in the case of a terrorist attack, be in place within 48 minutes. There was clearly a failure of emergency planning for this kind of incident, which we do not see for terrorist attacks, for which emergency planning is clearly extremely good. So I ask the Government: what immediate steps are being taken to ensure that such a failure will not be replicated in any future non-terrorist incident?

The Government say that they welcome—and indeed precipitated—the resignation of the chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea council. But what about the leader of the council? It was a political decision to stockpile huge cash reserves while apparently skimping on safety measures. Will the Government now be asking him to resign also?

We welcome the public inquiry that has been announced by the Prime Minister. We must obviously ask a raft of difficult questions, including why the fire spread so quickly and why the lessons of the past seem not to have been learned, but there are obvious concerns about how long such an inquiry might last. History is not very encouraging in this respect. Can the Leader of the House give any further assurances in terms of both the speed with which any interim recommendations might be produced and how we can ensure that the full inquiry does not drag on for years?

The Statement says that a number of tests already carried out have shown other blocks to be clad in combustible materials, and the Government claim that all local authorities and fire services are now taking all possible steps to ensure buildings are safe. Given that some—indeed many—of these steps will be costly, can the Government give an assurance today that they will not be delayed by any shortage of funding? In the case of such buildings which are privately owned, what steps beyond exhortation will the Government take to ensure that the owners fulfil their legal obligations to provide safe buildings?

It is clear that, when the tests on all these buildings are complete, there will be a need for large-scale remedial action. If there are 600 blocks, there will be a vast amount of work that needs doing quickly. This can be undertaken only by skilled workers in the construction sector. Given that there is already a shortage of such skills, particularly in London, and that 50% of the construction workforce in London is from the EU, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that, as the Brexit talks proceed, every encouragement will be given to such workers to continue to come to London, as any major labour shortage in this area could be literally a matter of life and death?

There are a number of issues in the Statement that could legitimately give rise to anger. But what got to me was the Prime Minister’s peroration. She said:

“It should not take a disaster of this kind for us to remember that there are people in Britain today living lives that are so far removed from those that many here in Westminster enjoy”;


and she went on,

“let the legacy of this awful tragedy be that we resolve never to forget these people and instead to gear our policies and our thinking towards making their lives better and bringing them into the political process. It is our job as a Government … to show we are listening and that we will stand up for them”.

This is a leader of a party who has just stood on an election manifesto to cut spending in schools by 7% and impose big further cuts in welfare payments and local government expenditure. This hypocrisy makes me very angry. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House suggest to the Prime Minister that if she really wishes to stand up for people such as the tenants of Grenfell Tower, she should start to adopt policies which follow her words?

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I join those wishing the Duke of Edinburgh a speedy recovery, and thank Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales for being here with us today for the Queen’s Speech.

We just heard two excellent speeches. It is a parliamentary tradition that the proposer and seconder of the Humble Address be a wise, experienced sage and an up-and-coming new Peer. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would agree that it is amazing how quickly you can move from one to the other.

However, that has not always worked out. In March 1974, Lady Birk was paired for the debate with Lord Taylor of Mansfield. He certainly qualified as “experienced”. A former MP, he was then 79 years-old and was a regular attender in your Lordships’ House into his 90s. Lady Birk later became a Government Whip. Unfortunately, as she made her way to the Chamber for the debate, she tripped, fell and cut her head, so was unable to take part. The new Leader of the House for the new Labour Government, Lord Shepherd, had to find a replacement with just minutes to go. He alighted on Lord Brockway, who entered the Chamber preparing his speech in his mind because he did not have time to write anything down. Then, as ever, he spoke with great style and thoughtfulness. However, it was commented at the time that, at the age of 86, he could hardly be described as “up and coming”.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made a typically combative speech with very strong support for the Prime Minister. He highlighted his own political passions. I welcome the comments he made on mental health, on which there was general agreement around your Lordships’ House. There was not quite the same agreement for his comments on the European Union but that debate will continue as this extraordinarily long Session of Parliament goes on.

In his earlier life, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was identified as a champion of the emerging new Conservative thinking and policies. He pioneered outsourcing and privatisation in local government with great gusto. As one article put it, he was preaching Thatcherism before the word was even coined and even before Margaret Thatcher knew such a thing existed. Just think: if history had been slightly different, there may never have been Thatcherism—only Forsythism.

A combative and conviction politician, the noble Lord has had a long and distinguished career in Parliament, including as Secretary of State for Scotland. I am told by Scottish friends that a great claim to fame is his bringing the Stone of Destiny to Edinburgh Castle and the premier of the film “Braveheart” to Stirling Castle. However, no comments on the noble Lord would be complete without a tribute to his amazing charitable work. Many give of their time and money but few would dare to climb the highest mountains in Africa, Antarctica and the Americas as he has done for those causes he supports.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, shares the noble Lord’s commitment to charity and is a trustee of the charity KIDS, which supports children with disabilities and their families—something that, as she said today, has a personal resonance for her. As the youngest and one of the newest Members of your Lordships’ House, she still brings considerable experience of government and Parliament, having worked for David Cameron from 2005 until he resigned as Prime Minister. She is highly regarded by all those who have worked with her.

When the noble Baroness made her maiden speech, I was touched by a passage which impressed many of us. She said:

“A benchmark of a civilised society is how we care for the most vulnerable and, equally, how cared for they themselves feel”.—[Official Report, 2/12/16; col. 443.]


Her speeches since then have shown her commitment to those with disabilities and learning disabilities, and today she has also shown us her natural wit and a thoughtful approach. We look forward to hearing more from her.

The last time this House met was on 27 April. So much has happened in that time. The terrorist attacks in Manchester, London Bridge and outside the Finsbury Park mosque have shocked, saddened and angered us all. As a nation, we have been clear that we will not allow such evil to compromise our democracy, but we continue to be deeply affected as we recall those who have lost their lives and those whose lives are for ever changed. The sheer horror of the fire at Grenfell Tower, with the final number of fatalities not yet known, has left hundreds homeless and so many deeply shaken and traumatised. As well as the inquiries into the causes and the response, it also raises deeper questions about our society that must be seriously and genuinely addressed in the weeks and months to come. In all of this, we pay tribute to the dedicated, caring and professional work of our police, our fire service, our National Health Service staff and all those who put the needs of others first as they sought to help. In their responses we saw the best of humanity.

The backdrop for this election and its aftermath has been challenging; it has also been emotional. It was also quite an unusual election. It was not due for another three years so when the Prime Minister announced she wanted to sweep aside the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and have an early election, she took the country, Parliament and, indeed, her own party by surprise—and, perhaps, for granted. But she was clear about her rationale: it was about returning her as Prime Minister with a larger majority, to provide strong and stable leadership, with a clear mandate for the kind of Brexit she had outlined. Apparently it had nothing to do with a 21-point lead in the opinion polls. She claimed that the country was coming together but Westminster was not. She added that,

“unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way … So we need a general election and we need one now”.

That was the only way, she said, to guarantee certainty for the years ahead. Well, we now have neither strong leadership nor certainty, and certainty is not provided just by announcing that we will skip the next Queen’s Speech, unusually, and have a two-year Session of Parliament.

We should challenge the premise on which the election was called. The Prime Minister had her mandate. She had an overall majority of 17 in the House of Commons—how long ago that must seem now as she sits round the table trying to broker a deal with the DUP. When the Prime Minister called the election, she had just got her Brexit Article 50 Bill through Parliament, unamended—the “clean” Bill that she wanted—although I wonder if David Davis, as he left the rather short initial talks with Michel Barnier yesterday, privately wished that the Government had accepted your Lordships’ House’s amendment on protecting the rights of EU nationals and thus settled the issue, so that he could focus on other matters. Despite the Prime Minister’s complaints, there was nothing extraordinary or unusual about our tabling of amendments, the debates and the votes. It is what we do. On these Benches, we will continue to be a robust, challenging and responsible Opposition, recognising the conventions of your Lordships’ House.

As an unelected House, this House has recognised the primacy of the other place—the House of Commons—and always will. That was the central premise recognised in the Salisbury/Addison convention, reinforced in the Wakeham report in 2000 and the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling in 2005. Following the election of a minority Government, there has been discussion about whether the conventions of this House still apply, so let us be clear what they are. The Salisbury/Addison convention recognised the legitimacy and the mandate of that great 1945 Labour Government, who had a majority of 146 in the House of Commons but only a handful of Peers in your Lordships’ House. The agreement in essence held that, given that majority, this House would not vote against manifesto items at Second Reading or introduce wrecking amendments. Whenever our conventions have been re-examined, the starting point and the endpoint have remained the same. This House recognises the primacy of the Commons, and that is how we have always conducted ourselves.

What is also clear in those reports, and from our own experiences, is that the House of Commons has primacy, not the Executive or Government. Your Lordships’ House can advise, scrutinise and propose amendments to the other place, but at the end of the day, the House of Commons, as the elected House, is entitled not to accept that advice, however wise we may think it is. That makes the process sound a bit more confrontational than it generally is when in so many cases, as we know, the terms and principles of our amendments are accepted by the other place. That is where the Strathclyde report went wrong—in trying to confuse the House of Commons with the Government. They are not the same. The Queen’s Speech in 2016 was very clear on this. It said:

“My Ministers will uphold the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons”.—[Official Report, 18/5/16; col. 3.]


We agreed with that then and we agree with it now.

If the Government are ever able to do a deal with the DUP, the details should be published along with the costs. There must be transparency. There must also be transparency about the legality and the political implications for the Good Friday agreement, to which the UK Government are recognised as a co-guarantor. They should act with rigorous impartiality towards all political parties in Northern Ireland. However, even with a deal, I suspect that there are a number of issues on which a Conservative/DUP Government might not find all the MPs of their respective parties in total agreement, particularly if the Prime Minister fails to put jobs and the economy of this country at the heart of Brexit negotiations. So—I want to be very clear on this—should the House of Commons send this House legislation that has been amended from the Government’s original intentions, their Ministers should not seek to use your Lordships’ House to thwart the mandate of the democratically elected House. The Government do not have the mandate that the Prime Minister sought.

This is the Prime Minister’s first Queen’s Speech and it is clearly not the speech that she originally planned. It has been delayed and shorn of so much promised social legislation, and it is the first in decades to be delivered without a parliamentary majority. If it was delayed to wait for the ethereal deal with the DUP, that is even more chaotic than we first thought. Perhaps it is chaos without coalition.

The first three paragraphs of the gracious Speech are on Brexit. First, there are warm words about getting the best possible deal and working with others—and then the harsh reality. Interestingly, the words “great repeal Bill” are not even mentioned, perhaps because such legislation was so misnamed. In addition to new legislation on trade and customs, the Government have identified five areas where new national policies are required with, presumably, new primary legislation: on immigration, on international sanctions, on nuclear safeguards, on agriculture and on fisheries. These areas will be complex and often very technical. The detail of these Bills will be crucial, so I urge the Government to publish their proposals early. I hope that the noble Baroness will take this away and consider it. It would ensure meaningful consultation so that we can look at them in some detail, because small mistakes could have serious consequences for our nation.

On the other Bills referred to, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, picked up on the mental health Bill. There is a serious and immediate need to improve mental health services and we look forward to seeing the proposals. Previous promises that there should be parity of esteem between physical and mental health services have not been met. Just saying something does not make it happen but, with good will and appropriate resources, new legislation has the potential to make a real difference. Like the noble Baroness, we also welcome stronger action to tackle domestic violence and abuse. Since 2010, cuts to local authority funding have seen one in six specialist refuges close in England, and one-third of all referrals are currently turned away. Refuges are key to tackling this crime, and I hope they are seen by the Government as part of the solution. Perhaps this is also an opportunity to revisit the coalition Government’s policy that removed legal aid from victims of domestic violence in child custody cases.

The promised full public inquiry into the horror of Grenfell Tower is welcome, and it must be to learn lessons and to hold those responsible to account. Those who have suffered must have their voices heard, and process and information must be open, be totally transparent and hold the confidence of the local community and those affected. We welcome that the Government have taken up the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Wills in his Private Member’s Bill to introduce an independent public advocate. Such an advocate should play a key role in supporting bereaved families through any official process or inquiry that can sometimes seem distant and not have their needs at its centre. That office must be fully independent and resourced and must not in any way be used to avoid the normal legal processes or potential legal action or be linked in any way to legal aid, which should not be ruled out for such cases.

The Government have also pledged to review their counterterrorism strategy. With the expertise and knowledge in your Lordships’ House, we will want fully to engage with any review and discussions that seek to make our community safer and to prevent such criminal and terrorist atrocities as we have seen. When the Prime Minister announced as her starting point that she was prepared to tear up the Human Rights Act if it “got in the way”, she was perhaps just looking at the issue from the wrong end of the telescope. The greatest and foremost human right is the right to life, and the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. Before any rush to new legislation, the starting point should be to examine existing laws, and their enforcement and resourcing. This needs wise judgment. It requires intelligence and experience and must be effectively resourced. We have to ask ourselves questions. If we had more police officers and more community officers and the capacity for intelligence operations, would that make a difference? We know that our police and security services have foiled numerous attacks, so do they need new powers or are the existing ones adequate but in need of better resourcing? Should we better resource the border agency? How do we prevent people becoming radicalised through misplaced ideology or racial hatred? Unless we examine the hardest questions, we do ourselves and our communities an injustice.

This Queen’s Speech is as much about what is not in it as what is in it. The promised commitments in the Conservative Party manifesto on scrapping the pension triple-lock, the means-testing of winter fuel payments, grammar schools, even yet another promise for a further vote on fox hunting and many other commitments have bitten the dust, despite this now being a two-year Session. Were they ditched for a deal that may never be agreed? Despite the issue dominating part of the election campaign, the Government still could not find room for anything meaningful on social care, other than perhaps that it should be improved and there will be proposals at some later, unspecified date.

Finally, it seems that the spaceflight Bill has been announced again; we want to leave the EU and fly off into outer space. I do not know if this is an attempt to seek voters elsewhere, but I say to the Government that, before they head off into new worlds, they should focus on transport on planet Earth. We have the ongoing, never-ending chaos of Southern Rail and still no firm decision on a third runway.

There are some positive individual proposals in the gracious Speech, but on the whole it is undoubtedly a disappointment. Half-echoing Ted Heath’s infamous “Who governs?” when calling and losing the February 1974 general election, the Prime Minister went to the country on the dividing lines of strong and stable government or a coalition of chaos. How she must regret using those words. In calling the election, she has unfortunately weakened herself and the Government. These are troubling times for our country, with so many difficult issues needing a strong and capable Government. In such times, Governments have to rise to the challenge. Those key issues that affect, and even blight, the lives of so many of our citizens were not effectively addressed in the Speech. Should this Session last two years, the bulk of the legislation will be Brexit-related but the issues that people are worried about, such as housing, jobs, quality of life and their hopes for future generations will not be improved by the measures put before us today.

As the Official Opposition—indeed, as a Government in waiting—we will continue to maintain our constitutional role of scrutiny and challenge with responsibility, and at all times act in the best interests of our nation in the challenges we all face. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

Clerk of the Parliaments

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness in paying tribute to Sir David Beamish on his retirement. Despite within this House the huge experience and long service of many noble Lords and the staff of our Parliament, there will be few who can boast of having served for over 40 years. I confess that I was born in 1974 but I was not very old. It is a truly remarkable record.

As we have heard, Sir David Beamish has seen considerable change in that time. When he started his parliamentary career in 1974, the Leader of your Lordships’ House and the Lord Privy Seal was the then Labour Peer, the highly regarded Malcolm Shepherd. At that time, there were about only 30 Labour Peers, despite being the government party. Lord Shepherd was, as one might imagine, pretty keen on House of Lords reform. He argued that only those who attended regularly should be allowed to vote—I hear some supporters of that view here today.

Parliament and politics have changed considerably in the years since Sir David first stepped through the doors of Parliament as a new young clerk. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has rightly paid tribute to the part he has played in overseeing, managing and leading change. Perhaps he took the advice of his “Mastermind” specialist subject, Nancy Astor, when she said:

“The main dangers in this life are the people who want to change everything … or nothing”.


The knowledge and experience Sir David has gained during his time here will continue to be put to good use. I welcome that, despite retiring, he will still be giving evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs on the role of an effective Second Chamber. Those of us who have already given evidence to this committee are perhaps united in describing it as a “unique” experience, and look forward to Sir David’s contribution. Perhaps being quizzed by Sir Magnus Magnusson in the “Mastermind” chair is good preparation for giving evidence to any Select Committee.

In choosing his “Mastermind” specialist subject of Nancy Astor, the first woman Member of Parliament to take her seat on being elected to the House of Commons, Sir David showed his admiration for the first female parliamentarian. I suspect and hope that he has welcomed the developments in this House that during his time here have seen the first women Leaders, Chief Whips, Opposition Leaders and Opposition Chief Whips, and indeed the first two Lord Speakers, both of whom were female.

It is clear that not only has Sir David enormous knowledge about your Lordships’ House and Parliament but also a deep affection and respect, and he has enjoyed his work. Only recently, when my noble friend Lord Foulkes posed a question following debate about the role of the Speaker, not only did Sir David reply over a weekend but he also supplied a recording of the relevant debate—from 1968. That attention and commitment to detail is recognised by the staff of the House, so much so that the word “Beamish” has now become a noun: a point of detail that would have otherwise been missed is now known as a Beamish point.

I understand that as well as updating his website on British peerages, Sir David is widely thought to be a significant editor on Wikipedia across a range of subjects and I hope that noble Lords are not nervous at the thought that we can look forward to some updating of their profiles. Despite his considerable work for your Lordships’ House, Sir David also has a significant hinterland of interests that he will undoubtedly enjoy throughout what we hope will be a long, happy and fruitful retirement. On behalf of our Labour group, I thank Sir David for his many years of service and wish him well. I know that the whole House will join with me and the noble Baroness in wishing his successor, Ed Ollard, every success in his post, and we welcome and congratulate the new Clerk Assistant, Simon Burton, and the new Reading Clerk, Jake Vaughan.

Role of the Lord Speaker

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has certainly been a very interesting debate. I also hope it will be a useful one for your Lordships’ House. We should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Grocott for giving us the opportunity to debate it today. However, this debate should not exist in a vacuum of what the Lord Speaker does. It seems from noble Lords’ comments that we are looking to ensure we have orderly, efficient business of the House, to which as many Members as possible can contribute. Management of that business needs to enable us to conduct our business as well as possible.

We need to be very clear about what has been suggested and what has not. No noble Lord—not even my noble friend Lord Foulkes—has suggested today that we replicate the House of Commons system and that the Lord Speaker should have the same powers or role in the Chamber as the Speaker in the other place. It is worth noting that we have had an elected Lord Speaker only since 2006. In the true gender equality that we see in this House, where the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House are female, the current Lord Speaker is the first male to occupy the position.

The three Lord Speakers who have been elected have all willingly taken up the position, yet anyone who has witnessed the drama of the election of the House of Commons Speaker will have seen them being dragged to the Speaker’s Chair—a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, although uncharacteristically inaccurately. In the past, Commons Speakers who have been seen as too partisan for the Government or the monarch have been beheaded, but it was not two who were beheaded; in fact, seven suffered that fate at the hands of the axe, and we would not want that to befall any Lord Speaker, or indeed any Commons Speaker, in the future.

I do not know why this week in particular things have felt so bad—I do not know whether other noble Lords have felt this too; perhaps it has been because we have known that this debate was coming up—but this week your Lordships’ House has at times felt extremely undignified, and I have some examples. We are supposed to be a self-regulating House but I do not know how often the noble Baroness has had to rise to her feet to intervene at Question Time. The fact is that that does not happen very often and it is normally because the House has been very bad tempered and ill behaved, and somebody has had to try to bring some order to the proceedings.

However, it seems to me that more often than not some of the self-regulation is rather bad tempered and sometimes quite rude. This week a noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches—I accept that her question was far too long, however important the issue—was told to shut up and sit down. I thought it was extremely offensive for any Member of your Lordships’ House to speak to another noble Lord in that way. When somebody speaks for too long or moves away from the Question and asks about another matter—to the disappointment of the noble Lords who wish to get in on that issue—it is rather undignified to have other noble Lords making a comment. A noble Lord who often sits where the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is sitting now shouts out “Reading!” or “Too long!”. That is undignified and does nothing for the good standing of your Lordships’ House.

On the subject of noble Lords who speak for too long, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, earned her spurs and the great appreciation of this House when she was a Government Whip. She smiles because she recalls the occasion. A noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who should perhaps remain nameless, tested the patience of the House by speaking for far too long. The noble Baroness, as a relatively new Whip, jumped up and told him that he had spoken for too long and that it was time to sit down. He replied, “I’ll just finish”, to which she responded, “No, you won’t. Sit down”—in a very polite way, I should add. That earned the appreciation of noble Lords because somebody took charge when the House itself did not want to intervene.

The point is that it is not just those with the loudest voices who manage to be heard first but those with the deepest voices. My noble friend Lord Snape referred to the fact that a lot of our female colleagues find it harder to intervene than our male colleagues. Often, just the tone of the voice can make things more difficult. Unless you are under a microphone—I have one in front of me here—it can be more difficult to get in at Questions. Also, if you are on the Front Bench, you cannot see who is behind you and you just carry on regardless. You can ignore the people behind you and pretend that you cannot hear them. Therefore, there is certainly room for change.

Another point is that the Lord Speaker can see who turns up late. Sometimes a Minister who is reading or repeating a Statement does not know who is in the House at the beginning of the Statement, and someone who has not heard most of it can get in with a question, thereby disadvantaging those who have sat through the whole Statement. The House as a whole may notice but the Lord Speaker is more likely to notice that than every Member who wishes to contribute to the debate. A favourite of mine, although it is probably inappropriate today, is those who make Second Reading speeches in Committee. Many of us who take part in deliberations on a Bill will have heard many Second Reading speeches by the time we get to Committee.

We need to look at the sensible, wise, incremental proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Grocott. It is a question not of change for change’s sake but change for the good working and good reputation of your Lordships’ House. If the noble Baroness is minded to discuss this further, I would welcome the opportunity to do so, because I am sure we can come up with proposals to satisfy those who seek change as well as those who are concerned that any change might go too far or lead to even greater change. There are sensible, incremental changes that could be made to enhance the workings and reputation of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I am coming on to, that is a role for party leaderships as well, but I will come back to that in a second.

I entirely agree that Questions is an occasion that could and should be enhanced by hearing from a broader range of voices across the House. One of our great strengths is the breadth of knowledge and expertise on our Benches, and Questions presents an excellent opportunity both to highlight that and—although difficult for those of us answering them—to hold the Government of the day to account. In order to achieve this, we rely on noble Lords to exercise restraint and self-discipline. We waste valuable time for Questions when noble Lords refuse to give way, but I also think we should expect noble Lords across the House to recognise this and take responsibility for it.

The noble Lords, Lord Grocott, Lord Rooker, Lord Low, Lord Foulkes, Lord Horam and Lord Snape, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, all referred to the atmosphere and behaviour we sometimes see at Question Time. Words such as “intimidating”, “fractious”, “undignified” and “unfair” were all used during various contributions. I gently suggest that it is for us as individuals to consider how we behave and to become more considerate of colleagues. If this is how we view Question Time, it is surely within our gift to help to change that. I am afraid I am not totally convinced that just having the Lord Speaker preside over this is the magic bullet. We are all beholden to look at our behaviour, but I also think there is a role for the party leaders—I include myself in this—to reflect on how we might try to encourage more Peers to take part and how we can more effectively look to encourage a wider range of voices to be heard.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Will the noble Baroness accept that she is perhaps speaking to the converted? It may be that those who are not here act in the slightly grumpier and less courteous manner than noble Lords who are here today and are concerned about the issue.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I understand that but, as I said, we as Leaders have a role to think about how we might help to do this. As I have said, I am not completely convinced that just this move would change that, but I am very happy to have conversations about ways we can try to improve Question Time. I agree that it is an extremely important and valuable part of the work of the House.

As noble Lords will be aware, apart from overseeing proceedings in the Chamber, the Lord Speaker plays a key role in the Lords administration as the chairman of the House of Lords Commission. In this regard, we have seen recent reform with new governance arrangements agreed only last year on the back of the recommendations of a Leader’s Group established by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston. That group’s recommendations were accepted by the House last May and have led to a refreshed and streamlined domestic committee structure and the new role of Senior Deputy Speaker, ably filled by the noble Lord, Lord McFall. The Lord Speaker is at the apex of this new structure and his partnerships with the party leaders, the Convenor of the Cross Benches and the Clerk of the Parliaments are at the heart of the decisions that direct the way the House is run.

The Lord Speaker is also ultimately responsible for security on the Lords part of the Parliamentary Estate—a responsibility that will assume only greater importance following the tragic events of last week. In this respect, he has a heavy burden to bear on our behalf and he does so with admirable grace and common sense. As my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, recognised, he also has a very significant role representing the House on ceremonial occasions and as an ambassador at home and abroad. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about the important role that the Lord Speaker has in our outreach work, including the excellent Peers in Schools initiative. The Lord Speaker also takes extremely seriously the reputation of this House. I entirely endorse the comments that we are very grateful to him for the way he has been leading us in this regard. I hope we will all continue to support him to do so, because this is an extremely important role and we are very lucky to have him as an advocate for us.

I thank everybody who has contributed to this important debate. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I do not intend to initiate an official review of the role of the Lord Speaker. As I am sure noble Lords will understand, there are other priorities on which I believe we should be focused—to name just a few, the increased legislation this House will be scrutinising as a result of Brexit; plans for the restoration and renewal of the Palace; and, of course, the security reviews that are now under way as a result of last week’s terrible events.

Ultimately, of course, this is a matter for the House to decide, with the option to bring forward proposals to the Procedure Committee being available to each noble Lord. As I hope I have indicated, I will keep an open mind about the working practices and procedures of the House more generally, and I of course appreciate that there is always room for improvement, so I am grateful for the opportunity to hear the views of noble Lords. I look forward to further conversations on this.

Motion to Adjourn