Hereditary Peers By-election
Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Grocott for raising this issue with his customary good humour, used to make a very serious point. We all welcome our new colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to his membership of your Lordships’ House and we will make him welcome. But that does not mean that we approve of this method of entry into your Lordships’ House. The laughter around the Chamber as my noble friend outlined the process of coming here was testament to how we all think it is pretty ridiculous. There have been some elections when there have been more candidates than voters.
This House has said on numerous occasions that we wish to end the hereditary Peer by-elections. As my noble friend Lord Grocott said, they were a temporary measure. They really should be ended. I say this to the Government, notwithstanding any criticism of any Members who come to this House: when we are here, we are all of the same status and all Members of your Lordships’ House. But the time when we would elect a hereditary Peer from a very small electorate has long gone. We have voted against such by-elections on many occasions. If the Government do not act, I assure the House that we will.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I confess that I have not always been a great fan of the hereditary by-elections, but we must surely all acknowledge that the process has brought some people of quite exceptional talent and ability to this House who would not make it through the conventional appointment process.
Economy: The Growth Plan 2022
Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Baroness back to the Front Benches. Many of us were surprised when she was departed from them previously, and I welcome her to her new job. I note that her official title is Minister of State for Government Efficiency. I wish her well; she has never been one to shy away from a challenge, and she has a challenge in that one.
We look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir. I am convinced that she will make an important contribution to the work of the House, so I look forward to hearing her and welcome her to this place. It is with slightly less enthusiasm that I look forward to the valedictory speech of the right reverend Prelate. Personally and from these Benches, let me say to him that he has been an asset to the House. We have greatly welcomed his wisdom and wise counsel, and we are going to miss him. I thank him for all he has done and look forward to his speech with some regrets.
We last met in this Chamber to pay tribute to and remember Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth. We did so in a spirit of unity and common purpose. With a new monarch and a new Prime Minister, it is a time of significant change. At a time when we most needed stability, instead we had the most extraordinary non-Budget Budget that this country has seen for at least a generation. I listened with interest to the Minister’s speech, and I was surprised that there was no acknowledgement of the turmoil that this country has found itself in in the last couple of weeks since that Statement.
On Friday 23 September, after this House had risen for the Conference Recess, the new Chancellor made his first Statement to House of Commons—and what a Statement it was. Then, and in the days that followed, Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng set out the package, which ended any pretence of fiscal responsibility or levelling up—or indeed of understanding the pressures on families, individuals and businesses across the UK. The response of experts and the markets was one of incredulity. How could this happen? At a time of high interest rates, the great government plan was to borrow more to pay for tax cuts that would benefit those who had more than anyone else in the first place. There was no absolute cap on energy bills but instead a cap on the unit price, which will see some families still paying well over the £2,500 promised under Labour’s alternative plans. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is responding, and I hope that he will address this in his response.
Following the non-Budget Budget, the pound fell, the markets reacted to the lack of confidence in the Government, and the Bank of England had to step in with a £65 billion commitment to prop up the economy. It clearly did not help confidence in the UK that the Chancellor refused to publish information from the Office for Budget Responsibility. Given the unprecedented market reaction, the Prime Minister should have heeded calls from across the political spectrum to return to Parliament.
A strong or weak economy is not an academic exercise. It is not just a way to gamble on the markets to see whether you can make any money—it is about people’s lives. When mortgage offers were withdrawn, hundreds of products were pulled only to be replaced with fewer and more expensive alternatives, and some saw their opportunity of owning their own home or keeping the home that they were in disappear overnight. That will also force up rents. The Prime Minister gave her so-called reassurances that they had borrowed money to try to help with energy costs, but so much of that will be swallowed up by increased housing costs, either in mortgage payments or rents. There was a real need and opportunity for the Government to respond and for ministerial accountability to Parliament. Instead, we had over a week of unhelpful distractions, mixed messages and Cabinet infighting.
The media were briefed that the November “fiscal event” was being brought forward to October, but nobody thought at the time to tell the Chancellor. We now know that it will be the very last day of October. Two Cabinet Ministers joined Back-Bench colleagues in mounting what has been called a “pre-bellion” on the issue of uprating universal credit benefits by inflation. As the Prime Minister turned to BBC local radio to put her case, her lack of empathy as she appeared to be reading out “lines to take” on fuel bills cut little ice with listeners.
This chaos has come at the worst possible time. Household budgets are under enormous pressure, hitting almost everyone with high petrol prices, spiralling food costs, supply issues and ever-increasing interest rates. Even those who previously felt relatively secure are now nervous for the future. The help with fuel bills will still leave many families paying far more than £2,500.
It is an expensive package, funded by borrowing, so I fail to understand why—despite Labour’s pleas and some from the Government’s own side as well, and the welcome intervention of Shell’s CEO—the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are so set against taxing the billions of pounds in excess profits, preferring instead costly extra borrowing. It does not make economic sense. The mini-Budget damaged both the economy and confidence in the Government—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
These are unusual times. Does the noble Baroness accept that the Government’s package of support for people and businesses with their energy bills is far in excess of what the Labour Party was promising? Does she also accept that her proposed tax on the energy companies would have raised a trifling £8 billion compared with the costs of the scheme that has been put forward by the Government? Will she not welcome that?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I would welcome a fairer way. The key question is: who pays? The Government had a choice. They could have said that future taxpayers will pay—at a time when borrowing is higher than it has been for years—or they could have said that the energy companies should make a contribution to this. The £8 billion the noble Lord cites is wrong; it is at least £14 billion. I do not dispute the “generosity”—I use inverted commas—of the Government; this is an expensive package. The problem is that it will cost us for years to come and still means that many households will be paying over £2,500, which they cannot afford. The noble Lord makes a brave defence of the Government but it is not one that I can support.
The Prime Minister, when talking about the economy, spoke about having an
“iron grip on the nation’s finances”,
but you do not do that by having a spending spree one day and then slashing your tax base the next. My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe will talk about the gilt market in his closing remarks later, but the Government’s actions have raised the cost of borrowing at the worst possible time, leaving a bill for future generations. Yet Ministers want us to believe that this crisis is not of their making and that, somehow, the decisions taken in Downing Street are not responsible for these economic problems.
There is no doubt that international issues have a domestic impact. If proof were ever needed that we are globally interconnected, the war in Ukraine is that proof. However, as with both Brexit and the Covid pandemic, it is not just about the issue but about how Governments respond at the time, as well as the long-term resilience planning to prepare for such events.
The Prime Minister insists that this is all caused solely by the “global economic crisis” caused by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. This House knows that supporting Ukraine involves sacrifices. We stand alongside the Ukrainian people and will continue to do so. Of course that conflict brings serious economic impacts, but it is also just plain wrong to insist that recent events are a direct result of it. Did the pound crash against the dollar because of the events in Ukraine? Did the war make UK gilt prices go up? Did Putin force banks to pull hundreds of mortgage deals from the market? No, no, no. These were immediate, emphatic and damning responses to the Government’s announcement.
When we look at the timeline of what happened and when, we see that the market movements perfectly tracked announcements and media appearances by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, including last week’s speeches in Birmingham. The Chancellor claimed that the economic chaos was partly the result of the additional “pressure” he experienced following the death of the Queen, as his Statement came just
“four days after the funeral”.
But he chose that date. I am sure that I was not alone in my exasperation at the economic turmoil being explained away as policies being badly communicated. That was not the issue. They were the wrong policies, and no amount of communication could disguise that.
Some excuses were more imaginative than others. Though not a member of the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—he smiles at me; he probably knows what is coming next—tried his best to help. I look forward to his contribution later. He remarked that the real reason for the pound’s crash was really quite simple. It was not because of decisions taken in Downing Street. The pound’s value collapsed because “the markets are terrified” of Keir Starmer. This time, the party opposite was not blaming the last Labour Government; it was blaming the next one. It might be helpful to reflect that, on average, the last Labour Government achieved higher annual growth than we have seen over the past 12 years of a Conservative Government.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor now claim to have listened. They say they have listened to the markets, to the public and to their own MPs. After nine days of digging in on the 45p income tax rate, Liz Truss finally announced, in a massive U-turn during the Conservative Party conference, that it would remain. However, most of the mini-budget still stands—but it is only Monday. It is currently still a package aimed at those in the top 5% of income, despite mainstream economic analysis and experience having shown time and time again that trickle-down economics simply does not work. The Government would do well to follow the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and others, and just start again. Or, if the Chancellor is convinced that he has, to borrow a phrase from Boris Johnson, “got the big calls right”, he should publish the OBR’s economic forecast. He should publish it today and in full.
The OBR was set up by a Conservative Chancellor and its forecasts have become a key part of UK fiscal events. Mr Kwarteng says he recognises the OBR’s independence, but the facts speak for themselves: he muzzled it when it was most needed. And it is not just the OBR in the firing line. The former Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, has accused Liz Truss of “undercutting” the country’s economic institutions and
“working at some cross purposes with the Bank”.
Of course, some have argued that this sorry saga might have been avoided had the Prime Minister not dismissed the Treasury’s Permanent Secretary in one of her first acts in office. Getting rid of a senior civil servant for personal or political reasons is a significant departure from our traditions of how to govern. As we see in this House—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I are a good example—we know how to disagree agreeably. Instead, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earls Court, the Prime Minister chose to fire the
“only official with serious experience of crisis management and then precipitate a crisis a fortnight later.”
I hope that the Government are not just going to listen to, and surround themselves with, those who will always agree, whatever the issue. That is no way to run an economy and no way to run a country.
A strong economy is one in which a Government play their full part in supporting and unleashing the potential for growth. That sits alongside strong public services that enhance our social fabric and our economy. A first-rate health service and the best training and educational opportunities are not just items to be ticked off in the “Nice to have” category; they are essential for a modern economy. An incoming Labour Government will implement a genuine plan for growth, creating the biggest partnerships between businesses, government and communities that this country has ever seen. We will ensure greater fairness in the tax system and, by making us a global leader in green technologies, we will secure investment and resilience in our energy markets.
It is not just in the green economy where we have to be ambitious. We will work together across manufacturing and service industries to find solutions to the ongoing skills crisis, to which this Government have no answer. We will also change how politics is conducted in this country, taking responsibility for our decisions and the consequences they have for people across the nation—because when we look at everything said by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the rest of the Cabinet last week, one word is conspicuous by its absence, and that word is “sorry.”
Early Parliamentary General Election Bill
Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Forsyth of DrumleanWednesday 30th October 2019
(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think the noble and learned Lord will find that, at the time, we proposed several amendments to the Bill that the noble and learned Lord rejected. Even in my wildest dreams, I did not suggest that it would be strong and stable government. I think the contradiction is that, at the time that the noble and learned Lord was taking the legislation through, he said that it would stop the politicisation of elections—nobody would call an election for political advantage. What do we think is happening at the moment?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I will, because I think the noble Lord recognises the comment I made earlier in my speech.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I need to confess that I was the Member that the noble Baroness referred to, and I was right about Boris Johnson—he is a winner, as she is about to discover. She is making a very devastating criticism of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, so can we assume that in the Labour Party’s manifesto there will be a commitment to repeal it at the earliest opportunity?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The noble Lord tempts me, and I have to say I would argue that case. Whether my party would fully accept everything I want in the manifesto is another matter, but I would certainly argue for it, because what is happening at the moment is that every time the Fixed-term Parliaments Act becomes inconvenient, the Government and their supporters could bring forward a Bill such as this in order to do away with it. Already, the Act has become nonsense.
During the Queen’s Speech debate, I joked that the first Bill in the Government’s programme would be a “Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill”. I thought I was being clever—I have to say that my grandmother would have said I was being “too clever by half”. It was a joke, but I think it would have been a lot more honourable and honest to bring forward that kind of legislation. Perhaps the noble Lord and I could have a conversation afterwards, because if he wants to bring a Private Member’s Bill, I think it would find a fair amount of support in the House.
In that speech, I also joked about not having had a Queen’s Speech or Prorogation for more than two years, and then expecting two or even three in quick succession. I really was only joking, but some might now suspect I have a crystal ball in my office. The programme for government that we heard less than three weeks ago was, as we said at the time, a test run for the Conservative Party election manifesto rather than a serious programme for the coming year, but even we did not imagine that the election would be quite so blatantly soon. I have to say that the Tory Party’s enthusiasm for a general election every time it changes leader is proving to be rather expensive for the taxpayer. With a general election, a new Parliament and yet another Queen’s Speech all within a matter a months, perhaps the normally Conservative-supporting TaxPayers’ Alliance, with its diligent examination of public spending, will be sending an invoice to the Tory Party for the October event. If not, I might just be tempted to do so myself.
So much seems to have changed since 19 October. As we sat on a Saturday to consider the Government’s Brexit deal, I reflected that time and patience was running out for everybody: the public, the politicians and the EU. A situation without resolution was unacceptable to everybody. The bungling of Brexit has fractured our nation and divided friends, families and our politics. If MPs were unable to reach a conclusion on the slightly revamped but inferior deal, I conceded that the way forward would have to be to ask the public to consider the issue. The stalemate in Parliament has made me think again about a confirmatory referendum. A bit like in The Case-book of Sherlock Holmes,
“when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.
As I said then, if this was the best Brexit, one that a Brexit-supporting Prime Minister said was “a great deal”, then we should all have the confidence to ask the public if they agree. At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, speaking for his party, agreed with me. He said—and I am sure that he will not mind me quoting him—that his party was,
“absolutely sure that an early general election would deliver it many more seats. The same cannot be said for the Conservatives or Labour”—
we will see about that—
“yet we do not believe it is in the national interest to have one”.—[Official Report, 19/10/19; col. 289.]
As my hero, Harold Wilson, would have said: “A week is a long time in politics”.
I said that my party will not stand in the way of this election: our doubts have been only about the timing, rather than the event itself, which we have been calling for and planning for for so long. I was sorry that our amendment in the other place for an earlier date was rejected. I wonder how tolerant a politics-weary electorate will be about interrupting their Christmas preparations to consider party manifestos. I hope that no party will be tempted to dress their leader in Santa costumes.
Let us be clear, first, that a general election is not just about Boris Johnson’s pledge to “do or die” or “Get Brexit done”. Those soundbites are about as meaningless as Theresa May’s “Brexit means Brexit”. A referendum would have been about the single issue of Brexit, but a general election is about so much more. It is about a vision for the direction of this country, and the Conservative Party will have to stand on its record. By contrast, we have an offer that will make a real difference for the people of this country in health, education, the environment, with a new generation of affordable homes and renters’ rights, free personal care for our loved ones who are most in need and a genuine transformative vision to support our economy and workers in creating the green future that we need. Inevitably, it will also be about the damage that a Johnson Brexit or a crash-out Brexit would do to our country.
Secondly, I make a plea for decency and integrity in campaigning. To hear a Conservative MP say that the country needs an election to “drain the swamp”, and other such inflammatory and disgraceful comments, is both sickening and dangerous. A general election based on the denigration of MPs from any party or all parties, who have been charged with the most difficult decisions and negotiations for a generation, would further undermine any public confidence in our politics. We expect our candidates and leaders to behave with the dignity that office demands, and we must pledge to do all we can to uphold that. If this election is truly to resolve the divisions largely caused by the bungling of Brexit, all parties must seek to heal as well as to win.
Business of the House
Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the last time we had a Bill similar to this was the Cooper-Letwin Bill. As noble Lords will recall, its process was quite a drawn out and unpleasant one for your Lordships’ House. Because of the urgency of taking the Bill in time and dealing with it, in order to have all the stages in one day, we had to propose the suspension of Standing Orders, and then the only time to debate the legislation was that which was left after the procedure Motion and any amendments.
Eventually, discussions took place and it was agreed to take a second day to complete all the stages, but I have to say that the whole process was pretty unedifying. There were seven closure Motions, there were seven Divisions on those closure Motions and then there were seven votes after that on the amendments themselves. At times, let us be honest, it did get a little bad-tempered.
I think we can do better than that. When we get a Bill such as the one we had then—
Baroness Smith of Basildon
If the noble Lord would let me have just a couple of sentences, I will be happy to give way, because I am sure we will spend quite some time discussing this.
When we get a Bill such as the one we are likely to get today from the House of Commons, like the one we had previously, it presents specific problems for how your Lordships’ House deals with it. As I said, I think we can do better and look for a better way to manage it. On that note, I am happy to give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, for whom I have the greatest respect, as she knows. Having been involved in that exercise, which was described as a filibuster, does she recall that the filibuster was ended because the Front Benches reached a deal saying that a second day of debate would be provided and that never again would the procedures of this House be abused by the Opposition taking control of business?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The second part of that is rather unusual. The Opposition are not taking control of business. If we in this House receive legislation from the other place, we should consider it in a timely and proper manner. It is right that, after lengthy discussions, agreement was reached; I would be very happy to see such an agreement again in future. However, as I said, we can do better by making those arrangements prior to long, bad-tempered, lengthy discussions. I have great regard for this House. We should conduct ourselves in the proper manner.
There are several principles here. First, we should always abide by the principle of the primacy of the House of Commons. As the noble Lord says, this is normally facilitated by the usual channels but, as he and others know, that is not the case for non-government Bills, where the normal channels do not manage the business in the same way. A Bill such as this one presents a difficulty, but the principle of Commons primacy is absolute. We must ensure that we still consider and debate properly, including for suggested amendments, but that we never wreck a Commons Bill.
The other difficulty with this particular Bill, if we get it from the Commons today, is that there is a fixed end time not of our choosing. Your Lordships’ House has no say or impact on that fixed end time, which has been decided by the Prime Minister through a rather unusual and controversial Prorogation.
Thirdly, we are, and were, aware of what would be a deliberate attempt to filibuster the Bill, not just the Motion before us. I do not think that any filibuster is in the best interests of your Lordships’ House. We, as a self-regulating House, need to find a way to deal with those issues while at the same time ensuring that there is adequate and proper time for debate and amendments. How do we best manage that in the true traditions of how your Lordships’ House works? As I said, we are a self-regulating House. Our procedures and conventions are different to those in the other place. Recognising that, if the usual channels cannot initially find agreement on the Bill, we as a House must find a way forward.
On 28 January, your Lordships’ House passed a Motion—indeed, it is referred to in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—by a majority of 152, with 283 votes to 131 votes. The Motion made it clear that this House was against no deal and that it should provide “sufficient time” for Lords consideration and conclusions if there was agreement in the House of Commons. Heaven knows that there has been little agreement on Brexit in the House of Commons, but if a Bill comes to us from the Commons at the end of business today or tomorrow on which the Commons has found agreement, we should facilitate discussion, deliberations and the conclusion of consideration on it.
If the noble Baroness the Leader were to say today, in line with the Motion of 28 January and similar to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the Government will ensure timely consideration of the Bill and ensure that those deliberations would conclude prior to Prorogation, it would remove the need for my Motion. If the Government ensure that we will act within the normal conventions of this House and ensure that the Bill is concluded prior to Prorogation, my Motion will be irrelevant and unnecessary. We would welcome that approach.
On the issue of our procedures, let me say something about the selection of amendments, which is different to that in the other place. All amendments in this place will appear on the Order Paper. All amendments can be moved, all amendments can be debated and all amendments can be voted on—even if they are exactly the same or almost exactly the same. Late last night, I heard that there were over 90 amendments to my Motion. I was ready to be wowed by the ingenuity of the noble Lords tabling them, but come this morning disappointment kicked in. Even the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, with all his experience of exciting dramatic novels, could come up with only,
“at end to insert ‘except for the Committee of the whole House on the Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill’”.
I much preferred House of Cards.
My Motion has been discussed with others, and I am grateful for the advice and support I have received. The proposal is that, as a self-regulating House, in the absence of the usual channels or a guarantee from the Leader of the House, we should decide how best we can manage this business. We propose that on Thursday we have a Second Reading until 7 pm. That would be seven hours for debate—considerably more than we had on 4 April and considerably more than will be had in the House of Commons. We could then have Committee and the remaining stages until 5 pm on Friday—considerably more time than we had last time and considerably more than in the House of Commons.
The other provisions give effect to those two key points. It allows for seven hours for Second Reading and seven hours for Committee and the remaining stages. Most importantly, that timetable—in giving us the opportunity to have a full and proper debate, to take amendments and to debate an issue we have already debated many times before—would conclude the proceedings in time for Prorogation.
My Motion respects our conventions and ways of working. It respects the rights of your Lordships’ House in dealing with legislation and the primacy of the elected House in dealing with legislation in good time.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That would be a first. Getting an answer out of the noble Lord is not as easy as getting him to ask a question. The fact is that the use of the guillotine is an absolute outrage. It is constitutionally unprecedented and dangerous for our democracy. It is an abomination. These are not my words. They are the words of the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in 2011 when David Cameron proposed tabling a guillotine Motion in this House. If it was an abomination then for the Labour Party and constitutionally unprecedented and dangerous for our democracy, so is it today. The noble Baroness should be ashamed of herself for being a party to it, no doubt on the orders of Mr Corbyn.
Turning to the Cross Benches, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, is in her place, but at the time she said: “The Cross Benches will vote against this or fail to turn up”. It will be interesting to see what happens today.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Just to reassure the noble Lord, I have to claim credit for the Motion, along with other Members of your Lordships’ House. When is he going to get to the point of his amendment?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The point of my amendment is that these are very serious matters. We are making a dangerous and unprecedented assault on the part of this House, to quote the former Lord Chancellor, and this should not be nodded through as part of a business Motion. We should be in Committee and consider all the implications. The implications are enormous. The noble Baroness laughs, but this is a revising Chamber. What do we do? We take huge quantities of legislation from the other place which has not been discussed or even debated because it has a guillotine procedure. When I left the House of Commons in 1997, we did not have any of that. One had to go through numerous hoops to get a guillotine. Now everything is guillotined and everyone in this House knows how legislation comes here in a completely unscrutinised way. That is the purpose of this House. If we are to have a guillotine procedure in this House, Governments will absolutely love that. It is extraordinary that Opposition Members, of all people, should be proposing it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord, but given that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was so happy to invite me to become Leader of the House, I put it to him that I am not pushing through a guillotine in any way. I am asking your Lordships’ House whether it wishes to consider a better way, as proposed in my Motion, for dealing with its business. It is for this House to decide—not for any Government on any occasion—how to manage its business.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I know what the noble Baroness is doing. We referred to the debate we had on the Cooper-Letwin Bill earlier this year, in which she gave an undertaking—now broken—that they would not take control of the business of this House and we would proceed as we always have by agreement between the usual channels. Not only has she done that today but she has added to it, bringing forward a guillotine procedure. That is an absolute outrage.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
This is why no agreement will be reached. This House cannot actually decide that. It is not a matter between these two Front Benches, it is a matter between the Front Benches in the other place.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think the issue for this House is legislation, not general elections. The way in which the noble Lord, Lord True spoke, was extremely constructive and I am grateful to him. I welcome his comment, which was absolutely right, that agreement takes concessions on both sides. I should hope that the only thing of interest to this House is ensuring the primacy of the Commons and that we conduct ourselves in a proper manner.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am being heckled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to withdraw my Motion. If we were sure that the legislation, if passed in the House of Commons tonight, would go through your Lordships’ House in the usual way we do our business and it was guaranteed by all noble Lords that we would complete our deliberations and conclude prior to Prorogation, there would really be no need for my Motion.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc.) Bill
Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Forsyth of DrumleanMonday 22nd July 2019
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this is not about a no-deal Brexit; it is about the Prorogation of Parliament and importance of the issues before us in relation to Northern Ireland. The only issues before us in the amendment proposed by the Minister are constitutional. Despite my disagreement with him today, it is appropriate from the outset to say that he has been a great asset to the House and the Government in how he has dealt with this legislation, which has been complex and difficult at times.
Your Lordships’ House is always concerned with constitutional issues. Two arose in last week’s legislation. It is to his eternal shame and my horror that I often find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on constitutional matters. On this issue, I partly agree with him but also part company with him. We are in extraordinary times. It should be quite unnecessary to have in any Bill something that says that a Prime Minister should not prorogue Parliament to get legislation through or to stop something happening. It should be a matter of course that we had sufficient trust in any Prime Minister that such an amendment would not be necessary.
Last week, this House agreed by 272 votes to 169 a cross-party amendment that there should be a clause in this Bill that required Parliament to be sitting to receive and debate the report on Northern Ireland that we had agreed to. We acknowledged also that the secondary purpose behind that amendment was related to the strong opposition that we believe exists in both Houses to the Prorogation of Parliament to force through or enable a no-deal Brexit, or any kind of Brexit, without Parliament sitting. Why was that so important?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way; I am just following her argument, which is that the powers of a Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament should be limited because it might result in a no-deal Brexit. Why would she not extend that to the powers of a Prime Minister to call a general election? If a general election were called which lasted three weeks and 31 October was within it, we would have left the European Union. Is she not on very thin ice here?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I do not think that I am; I shall tell the noble Lord why. Patience is a great virtue, because I was about to come on to it.
The die is now cast. At 5 pm today, the ballot on who is to be the next leader of the Conservative Party and therefore the next Prime Minister will close. Neither candidate rules out no deal—that is a slightly separate issue. However, only one of them—the one most likely to win, Boris Johnson—has not ruled out shutting down Parliament in order for it not to take a view on crashing out of the EU. It may be that a no-deal Brexit is exactly what happens; I do not know—I am worried sick about it like most other people, but I do not know whether that will happen. But what I do know and firmly believe is that if any Prime Minister wants to take this country down that road they should stand at the Dispatch Box in front of their Parliament and say so as it happens.
Only Boris Johnson has not ruled out a no-deal Brexit. I find that deeply shocking. He is behaving more like a medieval monarch than a Prime Minister-in-waiting. King Boris might have a good ring to it, but he should remember Charles I.
As always, it is a matter for the House of Commons whether it accepts our amendments or not. Both Houses know that and respect that, yet this Government have always found it easiest, when the House of Lords disagrees with them, to dress it up as a disagreement between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. We saw that on tax credits and the Strathclyde report. Let us be absolutely clear today what we, the House of Lords, did in passing that amendment last week. We gave the House of Commons an opportunity, if it so wished, to insert a no-Prorogation clause into the Bill for the interests of Northern Ireland and on Brexit. The MPs did not just welcome the principle that we put forward, they felt that they should go further, be more explicit, clearer and put it beyond any doubt that, even if in recess, adjourned or prorogued, Parliament must be recalled. I think the public would expect Parliament to be here.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, said there was no debate in the House of Commons. I listened to that debate. It was obviously shorter, because it was on ping-pong and just on our amendments, but this was referred to on a number of occasions through the debate. There was strong support, as was evidenced in the vote. So we support the amendment from the House of Commons and we disagree with the Government in disagreeing with it.
Trade Union Bill
Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I was not planning to speak on this matter but I have been provoked. I do not know what I think about this because I am in two minds. First, this is a manifesto commitment. This House is not expected to oppose Conservative Party manifesto commitments. However, the manifesto commitment is in two parts—it is about a review of funding, and this is only one part. I had to deal with this when I was a Minister of State in the Department of Employment in 1992.
In 1982, my noble friend Lord Tebbit dealt with the matter very well. The issue then on opting out or opting in was that people were not able to choose whether they wished to subscribe to the political fund and many were not aware that there was a political fund. In 1982—I hope that my memory is correct— my noble friend Lord Tebbit and Lady Thatcher’s Government decided that the fairest way to deal with this was to have a regular ballot every 10 years to establish whether there should be a political fund and that people should be able to opt out if they wished, thus preserving individual freedom.
In 1992, 10 years on, we looked at this again and we had some employment legislation which was a little controversial. It included abolishing wages councils and one or two other things like that. The debate in the Conservative Party and the Government at the time was that we should change the law and make a requirement to opt in. I decided that we should not do that and the Government took that view. I decided that we should do so not for any reasons about party political funding, but because I thought that it would be unfair to the Labour Party, reduce its funding and inevitably start a debate about state funding of political parties, to which I am totally opposed. The day we put our hands in the pocket of the taxpayers to pay for our party political campaigning is the day when a bigger gap will open up between us and the electorate.
It would be a great mistake if we moved away from the system that we have—I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the importance of controlling expenditure in constituencies—and the need for political parties to raise their funds by getting members on the ground and in the constituencies. A culture that enables one or two very rich people to bankroll one party, or three or four trade unions to bankroll another, encourages the loss of that grass- roots support that is so desperately needed at present.
As I say, I am in two minds. I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer this in responding to the debate on the Motion: what is the problem that we are trying to solve? What has gone wrong with the trade union political funds and the system established in 1992? I have seen the letter that my noble friend wrote to all of us. Is it that we think that people are being lent on not to opt out of the political levy? Is it, as she said in her letter, that we think that people are not aware that they have the right to opt out of the political fund? If that is the case, is it not possible for the trade unions to come forward with proposals on a voluntary basis that would establish that whatever these deficiencies are would be put right? I know that they have done so.
We are provoking a confrontation that will do none of us any good and certainly will not do the political system any good. I say to the noble Baroness, who I have enormous respect for, on the idea that we can sort this out in five weeks: this will be a bean-feast for the media to have a go at all political parties and their funding.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
If I might briefly assist the House in looking at this issue, I am not for one moment suggesting that, in the five weeks or so to the end of February, the Select Committee would be able to look at all issues of party funding. That is not the purpose of my Motion. It is on one specific point: that, on the issues that the Committee would be deciding and voting on, there should be a parallel process to inform its deliberations. No one would dream that it could do it in five weeks—if we cannot do it five or 10 years, we will not do it in five weeks. It is specific on the point of what the committee will be debating.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Baroness is very smart and clever and that is exactly the right answer to give to my point, but I am trying to make bricks here. She may be correct in saying that the terms of reference for the committee and its functions could be limited to that period of time, but that will not affect what goes on in the outside world. We will have a great old row about party funding and we will not be in a position to get agreement between the political parties. We all know that it was about setting a limit. The trade unions think that the limit should not apply to them, the Labour Party is so dependent on the trade unions that it will not want to do that, and the same on our side. We know where the differences are. I hope that these might be resolved in the future, but I do not think that the noble Baroness’s Motion is the right way to do that. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack that the proper way to do this is in consideration of the Bill.
I hope that my friends on the Front Bench will recognise that this will take away funding from the Labour Party at a time when the Labour Party is perhaps not at its strongest. I have no brief to build up the Labour Party, but our parliamentary system depends on having a strong and effective Opposition. The Short money is supposed to enable the Opposition to operate in Parliament; it is nothing to do with party politics as such and is being cut, so that makes it harder for them to operate. At the same time, to attack the funding is, I think, misguided because I know what will happen. The people will say, “Well, let’s have a look at the Tory Party. How can we inflict this there?”, and we will get into a war of mutual destruction. I do not think that would help enhance the reputation of Parliament or of the political parties. Therefore, the best possible outcome would be not to pass the noble Baroness’s Motion and for the Government to think again about whether there is a way to meet our manifesto commitment and, at the same time, reach a deal with the trade unions which enables whatever the problem is that the Government perceive makes it necessary to do this to be resolved.
Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, seems to be under the impression that, contrary to what the Leader said, the Government want to do nothing. The Government would have us believe, from what they have hinted at, that they are happy to look at things again. Therefore, I do not accept his argument on that. What is clear, though, is that passing the amendment of my noble friend Lady Hollis would force the Government to look at this again. We would have a commitment, a promise: they would have to look at this issue again and say where they could make significant changes to protect those who are currently terrified of the letters they will get at Christmas outlining the cuts to expect in their income.
We have been very clear: this is not a fatal amendment; it does not totally block the Government’s plans; it allows them to reconsider. Although we do not have the right to pass a fatal amendment, we have a moral and constitutional duty to scrutinise, examine and challenge and, when a Government have clearly got it wrong, to ask them to think again. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I were sparring partners at a distance on Radio 4 today, but even those voting with the Government tonight are saying, “But I’ve got great concerns about the policy; I want to see change”. The noble Baroness needs to know, if her troops follow her into the Lobby today, that they are doing so because she has tried to make a constitutional issue out of this, not because they agree with the tax credit cuts. We could give the Chancellor of the Exchequer tonight an opportunity to address the very deep concerns expressed by Peers and Members of Parliament of all parties, including very senior members of her own party and colleagues on the Benches behind her.
I want to explain why these Benches have not put forward a straightforward fatal Motion like the one tabled by the Liberal Democrats at the behest of their party leader, Tim Farron. In policy terms, there is little between us on this issue. It is significant that the fatal Motion was tabled only after the Government had threatened retaliation if your Lordships’ House voted against the cuts. That escalated the constitutional issues and let the Government off the hook a bit, because they were more willing to talk about constitutional issues than about the impact of these cuts. The really important task before us today is to look at how we can protect people from what the Government have proposed, and I regret that the fatal Motion has allowed the focus to go off the issue and on to the constitution. My further concern is that the Government, having won a vote in the Commons, would quickly return with new primary legislation with very little change, if any, to avoid consideration by your Lordships’ House.
We believe that our Motion is the only one that can lead to meaningful change. It gives Ministers the opportunity to take a step back and listen properly to the clamour of voices calling for them to think again. That is the right role for your Lordships’ House to take. Those voices are clamouring not just here in Parliament; it is also the Children’s Society, think tanks such as the IFS, the IEA and the Adam Smith Institute, and newspapers such as the Sun that would normally support this Government.
We have heard the arguments about whether this oversteps our constitutional authority. It does not.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Can the noble Baroness tell us exactly how much the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, would cost?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My noble friend Lady Hollis is very keen to tell the noble Lord.
English Votes for English Laws
Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Sorry, it was 181. I am glad to be corrected on that. When the noble Baroness commented, she said that “some” noble Lords would have preferred a Joint Committee. More than 300 Lords wanted a Joint Committee. It was a massive majority. I do not recall another majority like that. She should have heard those voices loud and clear. All she said at the Dispatch Box today was, “We in the Government don’t think it’s a good idea”. Actually, we in the House of Lords think that it is a very good idea.
The Government are suggesting a significant and unprecedented change to Standing Orders. As a House, we should not comment on the effect of the Government’s proposed changes on the other place other than on how it affects the Government as a whole, not on how it affects debates in the other place. I know that the noble Baroness used the word “clarity”, but there is a distinct lack of clarity as to how it affects us and in what way.
I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said when she said that Chris Grayling, as Leader of the House of Commons, has invited our Constitution Committee to, in I think her exact words, “work with” the Commons Procedure Committee to monitor the working of the new Standing Orders in the first year. What does that mean? If he wants the committees to work together, what is so wrong about having a Joint Committee to look at these issues? If she is talking about looking at how the new Standing Orders work in the first year, can she tell the House which Bills the Government expect to be affected in the first year so that the committees will have an opportunity to evaluate how they will work?
I am disappointed to say this, but this whole saga is becoming symptomatic of the Government’s approach more generally. It is not good government to rush such matters through without proper consideration. I would like to see much greater analysis of the constitutional position, as well as examination of the consequences, intended and unintended, so that any potential problems and difficulties are addressed now. As I said to her before, I would much rather know early on whether there are potential difficulties and problems so that they can be dealt with and addressed, rather than, two or three years down the line, having a constitutional crisis that nobody has thought how to address.
In raising this issue, as in others, it seems that the Government see any opposition as a threat or challenge, not as an opportunity to improve legislation or to get things right. I am convinced that the only reason why your Lordships’ House raised this is because it was concerned that the Government should make good legislation and not get into a constitutional crisis over this. All Governments have the right to get their promised legislation through Parliament. That is an absolute. However, we have seen half-baked and half-formed legislation put before this House. I understand that that happens. I was a government Minister myself; we all know that these things happen. However, my serious concern, which is relevant to this debate and to the wider operations of your Lordships’ House, is that the Government either seek to ignore what we do or overreact to the House of Lords expressing a different view and offering advice or suggestions to the Government.
On Monday evening, we had the Government briefing journalists that if this House voted against the tax credits statutory instrument then the House would be “suspended”. That is nothing short of outrageous and appalling. Parliament does not belong to the Government and the Government cannot dictate how Parliament acts, just as the House of Lords does not and should not dictate to the Government how they act. We know our role—you could say we know our place—but we have a duty and a responsibility sometimes to get the Government to think again or look at something again. There needs to be a much greater understanding of our respective roles and respect for them.
Your Lordships’ House made a simple, moderate request to the House of Commons that a Joint Committee be established to examine any possible effects of the proposed changes they are considering in the other place on the way we operate our business. That does not stop the Government proceeding with the proposals or hinder them from going ahead with them. It merely asks that we work together, in a Joint Committee, to find a way through any potential problems. What could possibly be so dangerous or difficult about that?
I have raised this simple question to the Leader of the House before in a different way: can she tell us what action she has taken to advocate and express the views of this House on this issue of how English votes for English laws affects the House of Lords? Can she tell me what response we have had, in the absence of any response to our request to the Commons so far?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Baroness made a very passionate speech, much of which I agree with, explaining the importance of maintaining the conventions between the two Houses of Parliament. Should that not extend to the convention that we do not vote on secondary legislation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
If the noble Lord looks at the various documents in your Lordships’ House from the committee on conventions, he will find that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to vote on secondary legislation—not many, I grant him; it is not something that should be done easily, regularly or without great thought. This is the point I am making: these are things that we have to look at, consider and not ignore in looking at our respective roles. I can assure him that we remain signed up to the Salisbury/Addison convention, but we also look for opportunities where we should act within those conventions and the guidance we have to challenge the Government to say, “Think again, look again; you do not always get it right first time”.