English Votes for English Laws

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the debate the Government did not want. We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for taking the initiative and providing this opportunity to try to ensure that the Government understand why there are so many concerns about how their proposals affect our work and our role in legislation.

There is widespread recognition that there is an issue to be addressed; we have put that on record previously and we have heard it today. But the Government’s proposals go way beyond the McKay report and the Hague report, so their assertion that this change has been fully debated and considered has to be dismissed. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has been emphatic, and I quote her directly when she addressed your Lordships’ House in a previous Statement. She said, “We are not affected”. But in the same Statement, she also said that the Speaker of the House of Commons would have to certify amendments passed by your Lordships’ House. As we have heard, that creates potential for legal and constitutional difficulties. The situation is clearly more complex than the Government are suggesting. The short but substantial speeches we have heard today have expressed serious and well-founded concerns. These have been exacerbated by the Government’s initial attempts to evade appropriate parliamentary scrutiny by issuing a multi-page amendment to Standing Orders in the other place, with no debate here. That is wrong.

We will fail in our duty as a scrutinising Chamber if we fail fully to investigate the implications this legislation and these changes could have for the governance of our country. If, after hearing from the experts here today, the noble Baroness still believes that there definitely will be no impact on the work of your Lordships’ House, she has nothing to fear from an investigation by a Joint Committee of both Houses. However, I and many other noble Lords do not share her confidence on that point.

Surely it is better to interrogate this issue now and be reassured that there is no impact, or to identify and plan for any possible impact. What a dereliction of duty it would be if, in six months, a year or two years’ time, there is a constitutional difficulty the resolution of which we have given no consideration to. That is a recipe for constitutional chaos, and it reinforces calls for a constitutional convention.

We support the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and I look forward to a considered response from the noble Baroness that I hope will address the concerns raised by noble Lords. I hope she will be able to agree to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for a Joint Committee of both Houses.

Palace of Westminster Committee

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for the points that have been made in this short debate. I shall address the questions that have been put. First, on the membership of the committee, the Motion today sets the wheels in motion for a committee to be established. Membership of the committee is not yet finalised. I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the quality of representation from this House and indeed its equality. We will put together a strong team to represent the interests of this House. Clearly, once I have had confirmation from the Commons of which people it intends to field on the committee, that will be reflected on before we finalise the membership of the committee as regards its representation from here.

On the way in which we proceed, there will certainly be equality in numbers on that committee, which will be a Joint Committee of both Houses. The intention is that the Joint Committee will be co-chaired by myself and the Leader of the House of Commons, primarily so that we ensure—as I said when this matter was raised here a few months ago—that this House is in no way considered in any way subordinate when we discuss matters of this kind. I very much see it as my responsibility as Leader of this House to ensure that the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred to with regard to the education centre is not repeated.

Once the committee is established, clearly we will want to interrogate very thoroughly the report that was produced by the independent consultants and published a couple of weeks ago. Ultimately, it will be for both Houses of Parliament to take the decision on the way forward on restoration and renewal, and I will certainly want to consider carefully the process between the committee being set up and its work starting, to the point at which we make a decision by way of a full debate and Division in each House. It is of course important that I and all others who sit on that committee from this House can properly understand and are able to take into account the views of Members as we carry out our work. Therefore I hope that I can give noble Lords the reassurance they are looking for in responding to those points.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on English votes for English laws, I do not intend to divert from the topic of this Motion, but I refer him to the Statement I repeated in your Lordships’ House last Thursday, and to the points I made in response to the questions in that debate. The key point was that with regard to any decisions made in the House of Commons to change their procedures, whatever happens down there will not affect the authority or the processes in this House. However, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has secured a Question for Short Debate next Thursday, and no doubt we will be able to discuss this matter further at that time.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, on a point of clarity with regard to the first issue of the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, my understanding, from all the conversations I have had with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, is that there will be completely equal representation between both Houses. I think that she has heard the mood of the House—that is what this House expects. I think she said that that was likely, but she did not give the guarantee that the House is seeking. Can I therefore press her, because that is my understanding of the present situation anyway, to give a guarantee that there will be equal representation between both Houses?

On the noble Baroness’s second point, in which she responded to my noble friend Lord Grocott, as much as we welcome the QSD in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, next week on 16 July, that does not replace the need for a proper debate on the proposals for English votes for English laws, which impact on the work of your Lordships’ House. It is all very well for the noble Baroness to say, “We are not affected by it”, but we are. It affects how legislation is conducted in Parliament, and we are part of that process. I know that when she responded to the debate on the Statement the Government made last week she rejected the notion, but she will have heard that noble Lords across the House are very concerned at the lack of debate in this House on that issue, and I urge her to reconsider. It is the view of the Official Opposition and, I think, of other noble Lords around this House, that there should be a full debate, perhaps on a Motion that can be divided on as well. To deny this House the opportunity to debate this in government time is totally unacceptable.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

Further to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition, I understand that in another place the Government have decided not to go ahead with the changes to Standing Orders next week but to have a two-day debate on them. Does that not strengthen the case for there also being a full debate in this House, in addition to the Question for Short Debate?

English Votes on English Laws

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement—and what a Statement. This is an issue of major constitutional significance. Action to ensure that the voice of English Members of Parliament is heard loud and clear has to be addressed. Indeed we recognise that, with the deepening of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the need to ensure that the views of English MPs are heard is clearly important. Both the McKay commission and the former Leader of the House of Commons, William Hague, in his Command Paper reported on this issue. But what is proposed by the Government today goes far beyond what has previously been considered and reported to Parliament. These are far more wide-reaching changes, with far deeper implications, but with no proper analysis of how they will work in practice. I find some irony in the opening lines of the Statement describing the Government as both Conservative and unionist. The credibility of claims to be unionist is fading fast.

We could be forgiven for thinking that on an issue of such constitutional importance, on detail that has never even been seen, let alone considered or debated, before today, and on an issue that has such profound implications for how Parliament operates, there would be an opportunity to wisely consider legislation. Should there not be a Green Paper, a White Paper, or possibly even a Bill that would be debated in both Houses—proper effective scrutiny to ensure that any proposals not only address the fundamental principles but, equally importantly, how this could work in practice? But no; this issue, if the Government get their way, will be done and dusted within the next couple of weeks, with no consultation or any scrutinising debate in your Lordships’ House. How? This will be done merely by amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

The Government have today published 20 pages of amendments to the Standing Orders of the other place. The implications of these changes are hugely significant. Given that, the noble Baroness has to address the question of why there has been no consultation or expert scrutiny outside the immediate narrow circle of the Government. Can she tell me when such constitutional proposals have been dealt with merely by amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons? Twice in the Statement she referred to making a start on the process. This is not just a start. It will be done, dusted and finished within two weeks? With the Government’s obvious fear of any genuine scrutiny in what most of us consider would be the normal, most sensible and practical way in which to make such significant changes, the noble Baroness will have to convince your Lordships’ House that this does not have the whiff of political expediency about it.

We will all want to reflect further on the detail, given that many of the specific proposals are new and have not been considered previously. For Bills that the House of Commons Speaker certifies as England-only in their entirety, the proposals appear to be fairly clear. However, today’s Statement goes much further than that. It outlines a process of sorts where a Bill contains some proposals that are considered to be either Welsh or English. There is not time today to go into all the complexities and complications of how that would work in practice, but it is sufficient to say that there will most certainly be complexities, complications and, of course, potential for chaos. Legislation rarely divides itself neatly into geographical areas. So if the Government are no longer talking about individual Bills but apparently individual clauses in Bills, this surely creates significant scope for additional complexities—and indeed risk.

With the proposals being published only this morning, the full implications of how this will affect the work of your Lordships’ House cannot yet be fully clear. In this Chamber we press votes only when necessary. We try to effect change by working with the Government with debate, discussion and presentation of the facts. However, on issues that will be defined as English, an amendment passed by this House will be subject effectively to a double lock. Will that mean the Government will be less willing to engage on English-only issues, because in this Parliament, and generally, the other place has a majority of Conservative MPs in England, so that whatever we say or do, they could vote your Lordships’ House down?

The Statement refers to using a procedure to identify English parts of a Bill as similar to that used for certifying financial privilege. Many noble Lords will recall that Peers from across the House have had several heated exchanges over the years with the Government in recent years over their refusal to engage with amendments passed by this House and ask the Commons to reconsider—and the issue raised has been financial privilege. Does the noble Baroness have any concerns about how these proposals will affect your Lordships’ House? Unless the Government already have a blueprint or precedent of how it can be made to work in practice, should not some thought and debate have gone into these proposals?

When William Hague presented his Command Paper to Parliament, he clearly did not envisage such proposals as those being brought before us. He was clear that there were a number of serious issues to be addressed, consulted on and decisions taken. Today’s Statement bypasses any such process. Mr Hague considered how a constitutional convention could be established and the kind of issues that could be addressed. The noble Baroness would have heard in Questions today the calls from right across this breadth of your Lordships’ House on how a constitutional convention could assist the Government, Parliament and the country. Laws rushed in rarely get it right.

Finally, we have concerns at the way in which this has been announced, and that has been reflected in other measures brought before us. This has been done without consultation or apparent thought for any possible unintended consequences. It is hardly reflective of the significance of the Government’s proposals. Yesterday, I spoke in your Lordships’ House of our concerns about the Government’s approach to the Childcare Bill and our recognition of the wider implications of the Government’s approach. The Constitution Committee, even since the beginning of this Session, has described a trend since the last Parliament,

“towards the introduction of vaguely worded legislation that leaves much to the discretion of ministers”.

This, the committee states,

“increases the power of the Executive at the expense of Parliament”.

On this issue, we are told that an assessment will be conducted in 12 months’ time by the Procedure Committee in the House of Commons. But what about your Lordships’ House? Again I have to ask the noble Baroness: has she given any thought to the implications for this Chamber? Will we get any opportunity to assess any impact that it may have had on the way in which we work? We have to do better than this. If we do not do it properly, the potential risks are enormous.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. We very much welcome the fact that it is being repeated in our House, given that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said, it clearly raises wider issues that go far beyond the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

The Statement was right to reflect on the long history of this issue, the so-called West Lothian question, and there is general agreement that we are beyond the stage where the best way to answer that question is not to ask it. There is an issue there that needs to be addressed. This is the Government's attempt to give a clear and comprehensive answer to the “English question”. The Prime Minister, when he first mentioned this on the morning after the referendum—when I very much regret that he switched mode from Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to leader of the Conservative Party—made the comparison between the position of Members of the Scottish Parliament in relation to Scottish devolved issues, and English MPs. But, of course, Members of the Scottish Parliament are elected by a system of proportional representation. I am not holding my breath in the expectation that the Government will ensure that any committee of the House of Commons will also be convened on a proportional basis. We have already seen at the outset a breakdown between the comparisons that were being made.

The Statement boldly claims:

“There will be no changes to procedures in the House of Lords”.

I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Is the Leader of the House absolutely sure about that? For example, the new procedures in the Commons may well affect the overall management of the parliamentary business timetable. Ping-pong may well have to be a more measured process where an English-only or English and Welsh-only Bill, particular clauses or amendments are concerned. Will she join me, at an appropriate point, in asking the Procedure Committee of your Lordships’ House to look at any implications of the changes to the Standing Orders of the other place? In addition, when your Lordships’ House amends a hitherto English-only Bill to affect Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland constituents, how will the Commons deal with that when the Bill returns here?

There is also the issue of defining an English-only Bill or provision. I recall the Bill that introduced top-up tuition fees for English universities being taken through the other place. It is often held up as an example of a decision being swayed only by the votes of Scottish MPs. I was the Higher Education Minister in Scotland at the time, and I had to bring in legislation in the Scottish Parliament months later to address the consequences of that Commons vote. It is not always easy to identify a Bill with impact only in England, or only in England and Wales.

The trial period for the 2015-16 Session is welcome. Will the review then examine the provision’s success or failure? What happens if there has been only limited or no experience of its operation? The “double majority” and “English veto” introduce significant new constitutional departures, and it is important that we examine these in some detail. Of course, as the Prime Minister said, taking the comparable position—putting England in the same position as Scotland—Members of the Scottish Parliament do not have the last word if Westminster chooses to override it. Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 makes it clear that Westminster has not lost the power to legislate in regard of Scotland. However, what is being proposed here is in effect an English veto, by a Committee comprised solely of English MPs, and that is not Parliament. Parliament’s rights are being inhibited.

The question we must ask is, if what is sauce for the English goose is sauce for the Scottish gander, should the Scottish Parliament be able to veto any provision in a UK Bill that relates to devolved matters in Scotland, in the same way that this English Committee can veto any matters relating to England? When we go down that road we open up a very interesting set of issues—which may well take us toward federalism, which I would not object to. Again, however, has this been fully thought through? I hope that the Leader of the House can answer that.

The Statement refers to making a real start on the task of how, when and in what format Ministers intend to take this forward. Will there be an opportunity for this House to have a much wider debate on these issues, and in particular how they will affect proceedings in your Lordships’ House?

Tunisia and European Council

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. As the news came through on Friday lunchtime, it became almost too difficult to comprehend both the magnitude and the nature of the events as they unfolded in Sousse. Families and friends on holiday, relaxing and enjoying glorious weather and local hospitality, were thrown into murder and mayhem. I do not think any of us will ever forget the heartbreaking sight of sun loungers being used to stretcher the dead and the injured. With 18 British citizens confirmed dead and the death toll of British and other nationalities likely to rise, and with others seriously injured, the horror and fear of that day will never be erased from the memories of those who have survived. As we think of the pain and distress of families trying to find and identify loved ones we can only try to understand what they must be going through.

I concur with and support the comments of thanks to all those—the FCO staff, our police and other agencies and the locals in Sousse—who are trying their best to give both the practical and the emotional support that is needed and will be needed for many for months and years to come. The Home Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for the Middle East are in Tunisia today and they will understand the scale of the problem.

I am sure that, like me, the noble Baroness was deeply affected by the interviews with holidaymakers who, while clearly traumatised and visibly upset, said that they wanted to stay on, in recognition of the support that they had from the locals, who had helped them despite their own fears and distress. I understand that the Government are not issuing advice against travelling to Tunisia, but is any advice being provided to those who are booked to go on holiday there over the coming weeks?

Obviously many Tunisians are already worried about their futures, both in terms of security and economically. I know it is early days and I welcome the fact that discussions have been held with Prime Minister Hollande and Chancellor Merkel but have there been any further discussions with the Tunisian Government? I am thinking not just about security issues but also about economic issues, which can have a huge impact on the local economy and the national economy and will raise other issues around security.

At the European Council, security and defence were rightly high on the agenda. It is a stark reminder, as we reflect on the 10th anniversary of 7/7, that this week alone there have been deadly terrorist attacks not only in Tunisia, but also in Kuwait and France. Meanwhile, the death toll in Syria and Iraq continues to rise. The Prime Minister has rightly recognised that this violence stems from an extremist ideology which hijacks and perverts the religion of Islam, and that this must be tackled at home as well as internationally. We must challenge such extremism, whatever its origins, and champion the values of peace, freedom of speech, tolerance and equality.

The noble Baroness may be aware from debates in your Lordships’ House on the then Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill that not only must our security forces and police have the resources, the numbers and the appropriate tools to be effective but action must be community-based, and all communities have to engage with government and other public bodies in a climate of trust. She will be aware that so many within the Muslim community are challenging ideological extremism and championing the values that lead to a more tolerant and peaceful society. In their considerations of the way forward, are the Government also giving further thought to how these individuals and communities can be supported in their work?

The noble Baroness will know that your Lordships’ House has been very concerned about migration, as discussed at the European Council, both in tackling the organised criminality that fuels it and the instability in north Africa and the Middle East that leads frightened and vulnerable people to risk their lives and those of their families. One of the conclusions of the European Council meeting is:

“Further to the Commission’s European Agenda on Migration, work should be taken forward on all dimensions of a comprehensive and systemic approach”.

Is she in a position today to explain what that means in practice and what action will be taken? The same document refers to,

“the reinforcement of the management of the Union’s external borders”.

What contribution did the UK make to that discussion, given the cuts that we have seen in our UK Border Force?

Finally, on Britain’s negotiations with Europe, can the noble Baroness inform your Lordships’ House whether there will be any treaty changes before the referendum takes place? I understand the Prime Minister’s political difficulties and the sensitivities around this but it is a really important issue. How long was he given to make his case at the summit? Perhaps she can help me: we are not clear at this stage what he is negotiating for. There is even confusion among those he is negotiating with about what he is negotiating for. British citizens, who are going to be asked to vote in a referendum, are also unclear what he is negotiating for. The Prime Minister said in his Statement that this was the first stage, “to kick off the technical work” between now and December. What exactly does that mean and what steps will be taken to keep the public informed?

It is a fact of geography that we are an island nation but all these issues impact on the lives of British citizens. Whether it is terrorism in Tunisia, refugees in the Mediterranean or the economy in Greece, these problems connect us all, and if we are to genuinely address them, we must do it together.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister. I certainly join her and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing on behalf of these Benches our condolences to those families who have lost loved ones through the senseless and brutal terrorist attack in Tunisia. Our heartfelt thoughts are with those who were injured in the attack and are seeking as best they can to recover from those injuries.

Like the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, I think it is important to pay tribute to the heroic members of staff who went to the assistance of those who had been injured, and the holidaymakers who helped. As was acknowledged by the Prime Minister, there has been a considerable immediate response by Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, consular officials, the police and the Red Cross. These are all very welcome.

The Leader of the Opposition also reflected on those who have expressed the view that they wish to stay on holiday in Tunisia. I certainly heard one of them on the “Today” programme this morning. I cannot help but reflect that it is the resilience of ordinary people to terrorism that will ultimately undermine the hate of terrorist organisations.

The Government have talked about a “full spectrum” of measures to support Tunisia and to address the consequences of the appalling events of last Friday. In his Statement, the Prime Minister referred to working with President Hollande of France, Chancellor Merkel of Germany and Prime Minister Michel of Belgium to help Tunisia strengthen security. That is a particularly welcome example of proper co-operation within Europe to help Tunisia. As well as shedding some light on what kind of help is in mind, perhaps the Leader of the House could also acknowledge that in addition to security measures, wider economic support will clearly have to be given to nurture what is a fledgling democracy. There are historic ties between our two countries. If democracy is to take root and flourish, it is very important that we not only give economic help—given the inevitable damage there will be to the tourist trade—but help where we can to support the institutional arrangements in Tunisia. Will the Leader of the House also update the House on what influence the Government are bringing to bear on those countries in the Middle East with which we have good working relations in order to undermine sources of funding to ISIL?

I heard the Prime Minister reported in the press today talking about the values of democracy, justice, freedom and tolerance. It will be these values that will prevail. I certainly wish to endorse that but there is an age-old balance to be struck between security and these values and freedoms that we cherish. Can I therefore have a reassurance from the Leader of the House that, in addressing the necessary measures, it will also be important not to undermine those values which we think are so important in winning the battle against the intolerance of extremism?

To return to the EU Council meeting, we have heard about the dynamics of the meeting. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, asked just how long the Prime Minister had to make his case. At the end of an eight-page communiqué issued after the meeting, there are two—or, rather, one and a half lines—that say:

“The UK Prime Minister set out his plans for an (in/out) referendum in the UK. The European Council agreed to revert to the matter in December”.

It has been reported that this was done during what in other circumstances might be described as a pit stop. Some colour on how the Prime Minister presented his case would be very welcome.

The Prime Minister’s Statement talks about both reform and renegotiation. If there is to be renegotiation of the treaty and there is treaty change, it will almost inevitably require referendums in France, Ireland and Denmark. Can the Leader of the House perhaps clarify whether the Prime Minister is expecting treaty change? Will the referendum which we are having here be contingent on those treaty changes having been approved in the referendums of those EU countries which require them under their own constitutions? Or is it just the case that the Prime Minister is not very clear at this stage whether he wants reform or renegotiation and is hedging his bets?

With regard to migrants, do the Government accept that many of those crossing the Mediterranean are fleeing war and persecution in places such as Syria and Eritrea and are forced to undertake dangerous journeys due to a lack of safe and legal routes to find protection? A key part of the response to the crisis must be to offer refugees safe routes into the EU so that they no longer have to make such dangerous journeys or have to use the appalling means of people smugglers. Given that there are now 20 million refugees worldwide, I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that to resettle just 20,000 must only be a starting point. She talked about the Prime Minister making further commitments in Bratislava recently. By one estimate, we have so far resettled 187 Syrians. There are estimates of nearly 4 million Syrian refugees, most living in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Can she indicate, in the light of what the Prime Minister committed to in Bratislava, what numbers we expect to see as an increase?

Finally, I acknowledge that the United Kingdom did have and has exercised a legal right not to take part in this resettlement—the opt-out. Perhaps the Leader of the House will explain to your Lordships the moral case for that course of action.

House of Lords: Appointments

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

On the size of the House, it is worth our being aware of two points. First, since permanent retirement was made available to Peers last August, 27 noble Lords have retired. That is a far greater number than people expected when we brought in that provision. To me, that shows a good direction of travel; I am sure that a trend is now being set and more will follow. Secondly, the statistics for attendance in the previous Session show that the numbers are starting to go down.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, in opposition David Cameron pledged to cut the cost of politics, including by cutting the number of Members of Parliament in the other place. The noble Baroness talks about the numbers in this House, but is she aware that each year in government the Prime Minister has appointed more Members of your Lordships’ House than any Prime Minister in my lifetime, with more from the government parties than any Prime Minister in my lifetime? How does that contribute to cutting the cost of politics? How many more new Conservative government Peers does she expect on her Benches?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I remind the noble Baroness that the peerages created in the previous Parliament by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister included 47 Labour Peers. I remind her and all noble Lords that the cost of this House in the previous Parliament went down by about 13%. As individual Peers, we must not forget that we cost four times less per head than Members of the other place.

G7

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. We welcome the conclusions of the summit, including the reaffirmation of the G7’s aid commitment and the commitments to fighting corruption and to fighting disease overseas. As the noble Baroness made clear, this is the second G7 summit from which, rightly, Russia has been excluded. There should be consequences for what it is doing in Ukraine. Russia should continue to be excluded until President Putin changes course, and sanctions must remain. EU sanctions will expire at the end of July. The Statement says that they should be rolled over and that the G7 stand ready to take further restrictive measures. Is the noble Baroness able to tell the House whether the Prime Minister will be arguing at the next EU Council for those sanctions to be strengthened?

At this summit, the Prime Minister acknowledged that sanctions are also having an impact on those who are opposing them, so we welcome the fact that G7 leaders agree that more must be done to support EU member states that are being particularly affected. Can the noble Baroness provide any information on what that means in practice—the practical measures that might be taken?

In the Statement, the noble Baroness referred to the fight against ISIL. We have all seen the absolute horrors of what is happening in Mosul. It is extremely worrying and indeed distressing to see ISIL’s advances in recent weeks, particularly into Ramadi. That strong and united approach to tackling ISIL therefore continues to be vital. We back the UK’s contribution to that effort, and we welcome the extra 125 military trainers being sent to Iraq at the request of the Iraqi Prime Minister. As the Statement says, the Iraqi Government must be supported in their efforts to push back ISIL’s advance and restore stability and security across the country. So is there now a further need to accelerate the recruitment, training and equipping of Iraqi forces? As the noble Baroness will recognise, an inclusive and enduring political settlement is vital. It would be helpful if she could tell the House if our Government are continuing to press the Iraqi Government to do more to reach out to Sunni tribes, and how this is being acted on. After all, those tribes are key to this.

Moving on to other issues, the summit also reached important conclusions on the global economy and on climate change. Regarding the discussions on TTIP, can the noble Baroness confirm whether the Prime Minister sought specific assurances from President Obama that our National Health Service will be protected and, if he did, what was the response?

On climate change, we welcome long-term goals but they are of value only if they are taken seriously and if they change short-term behaviour to ensure that they are actually achieved. In December, the UN climate change negotiations will take place in Paris. What is the UK doing to ensure that the EU negotiates on the more ambitious targets that we have already called for?

Obviously we welcome serious action to tackle fraud, whenever and wherever. In his Statement, the Prime Minister specifically referred to FIFA. Last week my noble friend Lord Bach, as shadow Attorney-General, raised in your Lordships’ House the question of whether there is any UK investigation into British involvement in the allegations regarding FIFA. In response, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said:

“The SFO has been aware of allegations relating to FIFA for some years. It is keeping the situation under review and is ready to assist”—

not to get involved or take action—

“in any way it can. We do not think there is a lack of resources”.—[Official Report, 4/6/15; col. 521.]

That was rather a strange response, but can the noble Baroness update the House on what has happened regarding that investigation—if there is one—since 4 June?

It is somewhat embarrassing, though, that yet again during important international negotiation discussions, so much of the press coverage around the G7 summit was not about the global economy, climate change or ISIL, but about the internal row in the Conservative Party over Europe. Even the Conservatives’ most loyal and supportive newspapers, and there are quite a few of them, described Mr Cameron’s attempts to have a clear line as “a shambles”. Many of us here remain unclear about the Prime Minister’s position. It would be genuinely helpful to your Lordships’ House if the noble Baroness could take the opportunity today to clarify the Government’s position. Can she tell us what the Government’s reform proposals are and what the red lines are? Can she say clearly now whether, when the Prime Minister has finished negotiating and comes back asking for a yes vote, he will insist that Ministers who do not agree with him will have to resign or be sacked?

I appreciate that the noble Baroness may personally prefer the approach of the Mayor of London, who is also the MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and a renowned Daily Telegraph columnist—not a Minister, although he attends Cabinet. He said that Ministers should be able to vote whichever way they want. That will make for an interesting Cabinet meeting next week. If the noble Baroness could clarify the Government’s position I would be grateful, and it would be helpful.

A number of very important issues were discussed during the summit, and there were some useful and helpful responses, many of which we support. However, it is disappointing that another international summit which is vital to our national interest has ended, yet again, in the usual place, with a Conservative Prime Minister fighting his own party on Europe. In any such negotiations national interest must always come first. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.

Immigration

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend may have been talking about the accession of Poland. A very large number of Poles came to this country. I was talking about Romania and Bulgaria, where we expect that the numbers will not be so large.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said in his Answer that it was too early to make an assessment of the numbers. However, some of the language from the Government has been quite alarmist rhetoric. Would it not be better to look at measures to stop any workers being exploited, such as stronger and better enforcement of the national minimum wage, and also to tackle those loopholes that allow agency workers, often from overseas, to be employed at much lower rates than home-grown employees?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. One thing that we have done is to increase very significantly the fixed penalty for employers for not paying the minimum wage. We also need to look at a number of instances where immigrant labour is being abused—for instance, agricultural workers from eastern Europe. The noble Baroness is right; we need to keep a grip on this.

Energy: Tariffs

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the costs they will incur by appealing the court rulings on solar panel tariff payments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)]

My Lords, we estimate that the Government have incurred costs of approximately £66,400 to date. This includes the cost of the recent Appeal Court hearing. However, if the Supreme Court agrees to hear our case, we will incur more costs.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am slightly thrown by that Answer from the Minister, because exactly the same Answer was given a week ago to my right honourable friend Caroline Flint in the other place. At that stage, the Government did not know that they had lost the appeal. They have now lost the appeal and have to pay the costs of the other side as well, and have incurred additional costs at the Supreme Court. My Question asked,

“what estimate they have made of the costs they will incur by appealing the court rulings”.

I think they will be significantly higher than the figure of £66,000 or so which the Minister has just given me.

Even at this late stage, does the Minister really think that it is good use of government money to keep chasing this merry-go-round of court decisions that the Government are losing? Would it not be better to sit down with the industry and negotiate a way forward? Everyone accepts that there need to be some cuts, everyone accepts that there need to be changes, but should we not try to do this in a way that does not cost jobs and that protects the industry?

[Lord Marland]

My Lords, I must admit that I was hoping that the noble Baroness would say well done on incurring only £66,400 of costs. It is a curious old world when we save the consumer £1.5 billion at a cost of £66,400 and are told that we should declare to the nearest penny. Let us look at what we are taking to court. This is one of the most ridiculous schemes that have ever been dreamt up. It is already going to cost the consumer £7 billion for £400 million of net present value.

Nuclear Reactors

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what research they have undertaken into, and what assessment they have made of, the use of thorium in nuclear reactors.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)]

My Lords, the Government are in the process of assessing the benefits of next-generation reactor technologies, including thorium, for the longer term, and the Secretary of State has asked the National Nuclear Laboratory to prepare a report. A previous NNL assessment of a number of claims made by proponents of thorium fuel concluded that while the theoretical science is reasonably sound, the risks and resources involved in achieving commercial deployment are significant.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. It is helpful, and I certainly welcome the fact that the Government are taking this more seriously. He will understand that despite greater acceptance of nuclear power there remain concerns about nuclear waste, both because of its potential military or terrorist use and because of the costs and difficulties of long-term storage—as he and I have discussed on many occasions—as it cannot be disposed of. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors generate no high-level waste material, and can reduce existing stockpiles of waste. Given that, while I welcome the Government’s assessment and the expected report, is there more that the Government can do to test the technology? Also, on a wider basis, have the Minister and his department given any thought to whether this is a technology for nuclear power that could be safely developed in all parts of the world?

[Lord Marland]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s question. The reality is that we have waste, so it will not improve the situation with regard to nuclear waste. This Government are very concentrated at the moment on recovering from 25 years of no nuclear activity with what we have. We have to concentrate on the reactors that are available, which we have had approval for, in order to get our next-generation nuclear power off the ground. We know fully that thorium reactors will take 10 to 15 years to develop. There is a high cost in that development and, at the moment, I would not put it as a priority unless the research report that comes out at the end of this summer advises us otherwise.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. We can tell the degree of interest by the number of noble Lords who wish to speak. I am sorry that the government Benches have been so sparse all evening. I do not want to repeat the points made by many other noble Lords, other than to say that I have similar concerns about the Bill. It seems to be being rushed through and pulled out with indecent haste. I take on board the comment made by my noble friend Lady Liddell about the Bill being a missed opportunity.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, with his perhaps usual modesty may have overstated it when he said that his plans for change were the greatest constitutional reform since the Reform Act 1832, which we should recognise had deficiencies in itself. But it remains that this legislation is highly significant. It is extremely important for the future of and the legitimacy of our democracy.

I want to address two issues. The first is the constituency boundary changes and the abolition of public inquiries as outlined in Clause 10. While it may be initially superficially popular, I have not been convinced by the arguments put forward of the need to reduce the number of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. If we are to reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons, should there not first be an examination of why it is considered to be the right course of action and, if so, what would be the appropriate number of MPs? Nowhere have I heard a coherent case being made, other than the Deputy Prime Minister’s assertion that the Government need to reduce costs and that this will save around £12 million a year. I do not think that factored into that are the additional costs of the greater workload for MPs with larger constituencies. But it has to be said that that reason alone is insufficient. It is also an argument that is difficult to sustain when the Government are also seeking to increase the number of paid professional politicians in the second Chamber, the costs of which we do not know yet. There may be a great deal of good arguments, but the case has not yet been made.

The number chosen seems random, as we have heard from other noble Lords. When the Leader of the House was asked about this earlier, he should have been embarrassed to admit, although he seemed quite gleeful about it, that 600 was “a nice round figure”. I assumed that he was making that comment in jest, but nothing else came forward. There was no other explanation of why 600 was a good figure. I have too much respect for him to believe that he thinks that 600 is “a nice round figure” and should be used. But he did not even try to give an explanation of why 600 MPs is the right number.

As a former Member of Parliament for 13 years, I represented my home constituency. The relationship between the constituency and its Member of Parliament is important and precious. It possibly is more so today because the workload of MPs is increasing, particularly in constituency work. I could never support any form of electoral reform or change which would reduce that relationship between an MP and his or her constituency.

The proposals before us today have the potential to change every constituency in the country—bar two, bizarrely—and we have to recognise the enormous upheaval that will bring. The boundary commissioners will have the duty to define the new boundaries of the 600 constituencies. Every election sees reviews. At the last election, my own constituency of Basildon suffered significant changes; indeed that constituency no longer exists in that there is no longer a seat named Basildon. Sometimes we get electoral changes we like from the boundary commissioners, and sometimes changes that we do not like, but that is not the issue. The system in place allows representations to be made and in some cases inquiries to be held. It confers legitimacy on the system. The Government say that public inquiries do not add much to the process and they will not be missed. They also argue that there will be few changes and most of them will be minor. That entirely misses the point.

In the last boundary review, the majority of constituencies remained unchanged, but significant changes in all areas and most likely to most seats will be made in this review. There could be changes in areas that have not seen any alterations for generations. We are setting a hard task for the boundary commissioners. The Bill also seeks to change the ground rules by which the commissioners will operate. For the first time, changes will go across constituency boundaries and, depending on the recommendations, we do not yet know how they will affect local government or the conduct of and arrangements for elections. The boundary commissioners are already tasked with seeking to maintain recognised communities, but this is now subordinate to ensuring that the electorate is no more than 5 per cent more or less than the new electoral quota, along with a limit on geographical size. So, for the first time, arithmetic—the physical size of a constituency and the number of electors—will be the dominant features. Those criteria undermine the conviction that constituencies should take into account communities and their histories. Given that this is to be overridden by the numbers game, it will be all the harder for the commissioners to draw up meaningful constituencies that residents can identify with. Furthermore, it must all be completed in time for the next election, so it will be a mammoth task.

It is interesting to note the views of the boundary commissioners themselves. I was struck by the comments of Robin Gray, a former boundary commissioner, in evidence to the Select Committee of the other place. He made the point that having the review system and the opportunity to hold public inquiries enhanced the legitimacy of the changes. He also said that even when representations were minor, that reassured the commissioners that they had got right the changes made. He made it clear that even when, as we have heard, the political parties played the major and sometimes the only role,

“they do actually provide some assurance for the public that the issues have been looked at, debated and an independent, barrister, solicitor, whatever, has come to a view about that”.

That is not to say that it is not possible to improve the system, but it is wrong to abolish the principle.

I have to ask this because I do not understand it at all: why the haste? This issue is huge and significant, and it deserves to be given the opportunity to be undertaken properly. For all the talk we hear from the Government about the big society, about engaging the public and about the public having their say, this Bill does exactly the opposite. Reducing the number of Members of Parliament takes democracy just that little bit further away from the public, and the Bill then denies the public the right to be heard at an independent public inquiry. So although the Government talk about giving power back to the people, on a fundamental issue that strikes at the heart of our democracy—that of redrawing the entire constituency map of the country—the public are to be denied even the opportunity of a public inquiry.

It does not matter if people choose not to avail themselves of that right, but it does matter if they are not given the opportunity to do so. If they have concerns later and there is no legitimate route to address them, that undermines the legitimacy of the entire process. This legislation will mean that the legal process does not even allow for the legitimacy of the proposed changes to be tested in a public inquiry. That is fundamentally unfair to the commissioners themselves, who will see their work and their efforts undermined by a lack of belief in their independence through no fault of their own. It could also mean legal challenges against the proposals.

My final point concerns the implications for the Executive in reducing the number of Members of Parliament. It seems illogical, if the size of the House of Commons is reduced, not to reduce the number of Ministers. The Minister, Mark Harper, when asked about this by the Commons Select Committee, said that to reduce the number of Ministers in the Commons would increase the number of Ministers in the Lords. Some of us may not think that that is a terribly bad thing, but did he not understand what the committee was saying to him? In his article yesterday in the Observer, Professor King raised his concerns that, if the Bill was to go through, Ministers would be selected from a smaller gene pool of MPs. To reduce the number of MPs but maintain the number of Ministers would significantly rebalance the role of government and the Executive, which goes against everything the Government have said about enhancing parliamentary democracy. It will shift the balance of power further towards the Government and erode accountability.

Your Lordships’ Committee on the Constitution raised concerns on both of these issues. It felt that a proper assessment had not taken place and that,

“it is an unsatisfactory basis on which to embark on fundamental reform of the register”.

I endorse those comments. Once again, the Government have got it wrong in their haste to make changes without thinking about the implications or effectively marshalling decent arguments.