Afghanistan
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join those paying tribute to the 457 and to all those who have helped to make the last 20 years safer for all of us. Like others, I do not believe it was in vain, but I have some questions that I would like the Minister to consider and answer.
My first question is: what went wrong with our intelligence collection and analysis? It is inconceivable that the West would have gone ahead with this withdrawal in this way if we had known that this catastrophe would have unfolded as it has. There must have been a comprehensive intelligence assessment at the highest level, both in the UK and in the US, with whom we work so closely. Therefore, we have to ask what went wrong and we need to have a full and urgent inquiry into this. I was chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee at the time of 9/11, the Bali bombing and the Iraq war. At that time, the ISC was allowed very good access to see what had happened and to consider the intel that was available. The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, as it is now called, must undertake an urgent and comprehensive inquiry into what can only be called an intelligence failure. There are reports that the Government want to curtail the power of that committee. I hope that that will not happen, because it must be allowed to work in an unfettered way. I hope that the Minister will today confirm that that will be allowed.
My second question relates to the quality and the nature of the training that was given to the Afghan armed forces and to those involved in nation-building and developing the economy. When I was a Minister in the MoD, when I visited Afghanistan I was told that the quality of our training across the board was second to none. If that was the case, why was there no resilience and why did the forces of the state collapse so completely and so quickly? A senior military figure said today that it may be because we were trying to replicate our own systems and approaches. That is the kind of issue that needs thinking about carefully, and Parliament has an important role in examining such questions.
Parliament must also have a role in ensuring that the welfare of our Afghan veterans is considered yet again. This will have been a great shock to all those who served. We must consider the repercussions of this on their mental health, because they need perhaps more support than ever, given what has happened in the last few days.
House of Lords: Remote Participation and Hybrid Sittings
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start by offering my congratulations to my noble friend Lady McIntosh on her debut performance. I hope that she might get a taste for speaking from the Front Bench. I also join others in sincerely thanking those in the House who have made the changes to our proceedings work, despite all the difficulties.
The Queen’s Speech last week contained one phrase that is very relevant to this debate:
“My Government will … restore the balance … between the executive”
and the legislature. I am not sure that my version of that balance will be the same as Ministers’, but I mention this because we should not assume that everything—especially in respect of that balance—was right with our proceedings pre Covid. It was not. In looking ahead, we should absolutely consider first of all what procedures and practices this House needs to allow us to fulfil our obligations to properly scrutinise legislation and fully hold the Government to account, because we have not been able to do either of those things as we should in recent months. I do not think, as some others have suggested, that we can simply press a reset button and assume that all will be well. It is neither practical nor desirable to do that.
The Constitution Committee, which I chair, has produced a report. Some colleagues have referred to it, and I hope it has been of help to the House. We listened, we took evidence, and we had information from officeholders, Members, Back-Benchers, Front-Benchers and Cross-Benchers. In our report, we not only outline the narrative of what has happened over the last 15 months but set out the advantages and disadvantages of the changes introduced to our procedures. As has been mentioned, different individuals have different priorities and experiences of the Chamber and our proceedings.
I was hoping that we could agree that we should not rush to judgment, but I think some people want to do that. The reason we should not make any snap decisions or set a specific date is threefold. First, we do not know what the next turn of the pandemic might be. Noble Lords only have to look at my home town of Bolton to see that there is a need for caution, because we do not know what might hit us next or what the next challenge might be. There is also the fact that many of us—most of us—in the House have had second vaccinations, and many of us will be expecting boosters in the autumn. That is not the case for our staff, many of whom are so much younger and have not had their first jab. But there is also the issue that, if we make decisions now, we may have to go back on them because we may get them wrong. That is why the Constitution Committee recommended a staged approach: that we should have a debate of this kind and then the Procedure Committee should draw up draft proposals —we emphasise, “draft” proposals—that the House could look at again. The committee could then amend them in light of that debate, and we could have a full, proper debate before we accept any changes.
I turn to the specific issues raised. My personal view is that we are a Parliament, as others have said. In normal circumstances, we should rely primarily on being present in person. However, we must acknowledge that some Members have exceptional difficulties. We cannot just dismiss this. We have to look at further potential arrangements for helping in those circumstances.
Many Members feel that the battle to be heard at Question Time is intimidating. They prefer a list system. Not everybody agrees. Maybe we should look at some form of compromise; there could be scope for the first three Questions to be listed and then having a more open situation. We must be willing to consider tweaking or modifying our arrangements in some respects.
As has been mentioned before, the major problem with the current arrangements is the total lack of spontaneity. This is a real and serious cause for concern. It curtails the scope for the will of the House to be felt by Ministers, for which there is no substitute. One Minister has said to me privately that the current arrangements are much easier for Ministers. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, disagrees, but I thought that the noble Earl, in opening the debate, was hinting that this might be the case. The lack of atmosphere in the House helps Ministers and lets them off the hook too often. This is not just about having a lively Chamber or a lively debate. The loss of spontaneity is very significant, particularly when it comes to the Committee or Report stages of legislation. At that point, constructive dialogue across the Chamber between Members can lead to real improvements in legislation. This has to be in everyone’s interests, including those of Ministers. The tweaks that have been made to our virtual proceedings to try to improve the situation have not worked. Preparations for any future emergency will need to take this into account.
Time limits on speeches is a vexed question. We have seen some ridiculous situations where Members with vast, relevant experience have been limited to one minute. This is just not on. We need a system where we have no less than five minutes in major debates, and perhaps three minutes in others. If this limits the number of us who can speak on every occasion, I am afraid that we may have to live with it.
I do not think that we can retain the present system of remote voting in the long term. We have to keep it until everyone feels safe coming to Westminster in person. Having card reader facilities around the Chamber would help everybody.
Mention has been made of committees. They work well and should be allowed to develop hybrid proceedings. However, my committee thought that the business continuity plan of the House did not cover the circumstances of the pandemic. The House may well face other problems or emergencies—especially during restoration and renewal, if the Government get their way and delay this further. We need to ensure that we have a business continuity plan which covers every contingency. This would stand the House in good stead. We can thereby learn the lessons of our experiences during the last 15 months.
Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall say a few words as chair of the Constitution Committee and then make a few personal comments on how I see the current situation.
Noble Lords will recall the very positive role that the Constitution Committee played in making the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill more fit for purpose. It was not presented to this House as a good Bill but it left us in a far better state. Indeed, many of our recommendations for improvements to the Bill, on such issues as the status of retained EU law, delegated powers and devolution, were taken on board, through government amendments, and I think the Government accepted in the end that our constructive criticism had been helpful and had changed certain things.
Likewise, we will aim to be constructive in any comments that we make when we look at the withdrawal agreement Bill. To this end, I have written as chair of the Constitution Committee to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to ask that all, or as much as possible, of the Bill be presented in draft at an early stage so that everyone in both Houses can have as much sight of it as possible to try to make sure that it is given the proper scrutiny that it will undoubtedly deserve—assuming, of course, that we get that Bill.
The Constitution Committee does not have a view on the withdrawal agreement, nor does it have a view on Brexit, so I will turn to some personal remarks and my thoughts on the present situation.
First, the Leader of the Opposition in this House was right to emphasise that it is for the House of Commons to determine the way forward on this matter. Yes, we can say what we think, but it has the ultimate responsibility—and it is a very big responsibility—of determining the way forward. Secondly, I appreciate the dilemma that my colleagues and, indeed, friends in the Commons are facing at present. I had for many years the privilege of representing seats in the House of Commons, first the constituency in which I grew up and then the consistency next door to where I live now. They were both in the north of England and were both areas that voted leave quite heavily. They are both areas that have been hit hard by losing industry and jobs and by austerity.
Like many colleagues and others who have said this today, I have spoken to many people on both sides of this debate over weeks, months and years. I voted remain, but I do not believe that we can ignore the votes of people who voted leave. I respect the decision of the referendum, even if I do not like it, and I acknowledge that the Government and the Prime Minister have tried to implement the referendum result. Actually, I do not think we can hold the Prime Minister to account for the ridiculous and reckless promises made by many in the leave campaign. Those who suggested that leaving would be easy, quick and painless have done a real injustice to the people they purport to represent.
When I voted remain, I thought that Brexit would make this country poorer and would create many problems, including those discussed today and the very real problem in Northern Ireland. There is no satisfaction for any of us in saying that we have been proved right. I share many of the concerns and complaints made about the way in which the referendum was conducted and the outrageous claims made at that time, but—and this is a big “but”—I must part company with those remainers who want a second referendum with the express purpose of overturning the result of the first. I do not think that is a valid position. At the last election, both of the main political parties said in their manifestos that they accepted and respected the result of the referendum. Parliament triggered the process for withdrawal, despite probably a majority of people in both Houses being worried about the outcome. I am concerned about what might happen if we have a second referendum. What could the result be? If the result were to be 52% to 48% in favour of remain, would the leavers be content? If the result were the same as last time, on what grounds are we remaining—this deal or another deal? If we have three questions on the ballot paper, what happens if all are rejected? The real problem is what happens in the meantime to business, investment and our economy.
My increasing concern at this stage is how we deal with the causes of the Brexit vote. I worry about the loss of confidence among those who have lost jobs, lost communities, face austerity, worry that their children will never afford a home of their own and worry about their care in old age. The referendum vote was not a simple 100% pro or anti-EU vote. It was for some, but for others who voted leave it was an expression of frustration, lack of trust and an “anti the expert” view. They felt that they were detached from decision-makers and excluded from the advances that so many others had made.
The nature of economic and social change over recent years has been dramatic. In the recent Budget debate, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, gave a brilliant analysis of what is happening at the moment. We heard from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others about the social problems just yesterday in this debate. These are real, and my concern is that any delay will make them worse.
When I read today that the Government are thinking of having cross-party talks, a cross-party committee and cross-party co-operation—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, touched on this—about the next steps, I just wished that that had happened earlier. If Keir Starmer or someone like him had been involved in these negotiations, not only might we have got a better result, we would have had a different political climate. I hope that, somehow, that becomes the way forward.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to speak on the pros and cons of Brexit. I will say a few words about the concerns raised by the Constitution Committee, which I now have the privilege of chairing, because, whatever our personal views on Brexit, we must as a House fulfil our constitutional responsibilities to try to make this legislation fit for purpose, even if we disagree with the purpose.
I remind the House that following the result of the referendum the Constitution Committee, then chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Lang, took the unusual step of publishing a report that anticipated some of the problems that would arise in legislating in this area. The committee realised at that very early stage that there would be significant challenges for the Government and Parliament as a whole.
Following the publication of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the committee produced an interim report in September last year looking at how far the Government had taken on board the concerns that had been raised pre-publication of the Bill. The committee was disappointed, to put it mildly, that the Government had not really listened to our earlier concerns. Indeed, had they done so, many of the problems that this legislation presents would not now be so difficult. Following that interim report, the Constitution Committee took evidence on the detailed and specific provisions in the Bill. Yesterday we published a report that goes through the Bill in great detail and highlights the significant—indeed, fundamental—flaws of a constitutional nature that we believe still exist and should be of concern to the whole House.
Our major and most significant concerns are threefold. First, there is the issue of legal certainty. We conclude that the Bill risks fundamentally undermining legal certainty in this country, a view that is shared by some of the most senior judicial experts. That is a very serious matter. Secondly, we are concerned about Parliament’s ability to fulfil our constitutional responsibilities in holding the Government to account and scrutinising all the legislative changes that are being proposed, especially when Ministers are seeking such broad delegated powers. Thirdly, we have concerns about the potential risk to the current devolution settlements that could result from the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has outlined. Amendments in all these areas will be key to making the legislation fit for purpose, which is what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House hopes we will do.
I believe that changes and amendments are essential. The committee did not just criticise the Government’s Bill; we made specific recommendations as to how these problems could be addressed. We have sought to be constructive and to propose changes that will help to make the Bill fit for purpose and that do not undermine the Government’s intentions.
Our first proposal is to give greater clarity and certainty to the retained EU law that the Bill would create. We believe that we should give all relevant existing EU law the status of primary legislation, deemed to be enacted on exit day. This would mean that such laws would have a clear legal status in relation to other domestic law. Moreover, and importantly, it could then be amended only by Parliament. Such a move would be consistent with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
On our second concern, about the additional powers going to Ministers and the scrutiny of delegated legislation, we took evidence from the Government. I heard what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said today, but we need more than just the committee structure that she was outlining. We have made some suggestions that are significant and would help. For example, we have suggested that Ministers must give good reasons for making changes by regulation, not simply judge for themselves that it is “appropriate” to make such changes. We recently had amendments to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill of that nature and I hope the Government will consider similar changes here. We also propose something constructive when we say that Ministers should have to personally certify whether new SIs contain any policy changes, so that we have maximum clarity on what we are considering.
I must say a word about the problems surrounding the Government’s relationship with the devolved assemblies. The noble Baroness the Leader said that progress was being made, but we were told that, when the Bill was in another place, amendments to Clause 11 were promised but not delivered. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, there are significant potential consequences. If the transfer of powers and competences from the EU to the appropriate Administrations does not take place smoothly, we could have a constitutional crisis. It is important that the Government realise that they cannot simply impose a settlement. The devolved authorities must be involved as partners in this.
I have focused my remarks on the need to make this Bill a piece of legislation that can function properly, because I believe, and my committee believes, that it is our constitutional responsibility to make all legislation fit for purpose. However, significant amendments are required if we are to achieve that.
Government and Parliament
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I join those who have congratulated my noble friend on introducing this debate. The balance of power between government and Parliament should probably be discussed by both Houses on a regular basis, including the case for Parliament having full details of all legislation that it is asked to consider.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, mentioned that in the Commons there have been some interesting developments that are relevant to the overall balance of power, and I think that that is the case. There have not been similar changes in this House—a matter that is also of interest. It is a fact that having full details of legislation is only one aspect of the balance of power, and for good reason colleagues have concentrated on that issue in this debate.
Perhaps I should declare an interest—or maybe a confession—in that I have been both a poacher and a gamekeeper. I have been proud and fortunate to serve as Leader of the House of Commons and as Chief Whip. I have also, over many years, been a Back- Bencher, and I am now a member of the Constitution Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lang. I mention that experience because I hope that it gives me a balanced approach to the different interests. We have an unusual parliamentary system and an unusual government system, because the Executive come from the legislature, as has been mentioned. That is different from what happens in most countries and it creates tension. That tension can be constructive if it is used in the right way and if people are aware of the roles that they have and the limits on those roles.
There have been many suggestions today for improvements in how we look at legislation. Incidentally, I must mention to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that pre-legislative scrutiny was a recommendation of the Modernisation Committee in 1997, so it was not all bad, as he suggests. Mention has been made of the fact that we do not use Green Papers and White Papers and use Henry VIII clauses far too often. Although I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on a great deal, as a business manager, it must be a step too far to say “never” to Henry VIII clauses. We have to consider their role. However, the fact that he says “never”, does not excuse what has been happening in recent years—on that, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is absolutely right. When he said that one Bill consisted of a whole series of blank pages, it was a wake-up call for everybody to realise just how far things have gone in that direction.
I do not think that, in government, those of us who were business managers ever went so far. However, something that I was asked, time and time again, especially when I was Chief Whip, was which MP gave me the most problems: which serious rebel was the most difficult? In fact, when I was Leader of the House and when I was Chief Whip, the greatest problems came from Ministers, who were trying to do too much—trying to introduce skeleton Bills, Christmas tree Bills and new clauses late on—and expecting the Whips and everybody else to snap their fingers and get all that business through. It was difficult. They were always pushed and they were encouraged by civil servants, but some departments—they know who they are—were particularly difficult.
I recall that when we were in government, we had what was called the LEG committee—the legislative committee of cabinet. Every single piece of legislation that was to be introduced had to go through that committee. Every Minister who presented a Bill had to take it to that committee and it had to pass certain tests. For example, the Treasury had to be willing to sign it off, and it had to be acceptable on human rights and environmental grounds. One of the questions that was always asked at that committee was: what are the implications in terms of delegated legislation? We had Lords business managers on that committee and they frequently reminded us of the difficulties in getting too carried away with what could be done by secondary legislation.
I have been listening to this debate carefully. I was particularly concerned with what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said about what he was told about why some amendments to the housing Bill were introduced so late; it was a deliberate tactic. I was also concerned with what my noble friend quoted from the article in the Financial Times, where a political aide said that it was “deliberate policy” to try to use statutory instruments wherever possible. That means that it is not an accident that we have seen such a mushrooming in statutory instruments. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can make his point about the numbers, but the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about the length of SIs is important, as is the fact that we are now seeing more policy issues introduced through SIs. That is really what is causing us some difficulties. This trend is dangerous, and my noble friend Lady Andrews was right to call what we have seen in recent years a “step change”.
It is not just a question of the niceties of Parliament or how this House behaves. This is very basic in terms of democratic accountability. It is also very important for the quality of legislation and the impact of the policies on people in subsequent years. If we saw Ministers future-proofing their powers, it would be very dangerous indeed.
I am afraid that the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, are not the way forward. It is not just for this House and another place to consider how they deal with SIs; it is fundamental that the Government themselves look at how they introduce legislation and improve preparation and that Ministers take responsibility for the policies they put forward.
House of Lords: Domestic Committees
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, because some of the points she just made illustrate the kind of information that we were getting about how the committees are working or have been in the past.
I start by thanking the Leader for providing this debate and all the leaders for the way they have sought to respond to the problems our report has highlighted. I join others, especially those on the group, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, for operating as an inclusive chair while keeping us on the straight and narrow, and echo the thanks to our clerk, Judith Brooke, who did a sterling job fulfilling her responsibilities and providing assistance.
My starting point is that our report and recommendations may not be absolutely the last word on all these issues—we are not claiming that—but we should bear in mind that not one person gave evidence to us defending the existing system. Nobody from any side of the House or any member of staff came along and said, “No. Don’t change things. Everything is working perfectly”. Very clearly, from all the evidence we received, everything is not working perfectly and we have to revise what we are doing. Indeed, the main concern expressed to me was that our remit was too narrow because we were not allowed to look at procedure or the role of the Speaker. Had we been able to, we would not be having this debate today, because we would be nowhere near finished. It was hard enough work to get to where we are with our limited remit.
On behalf of the group, and without consulting it, I apologise to my noble friend Lady Donaghy if she felt at all victimised; that really was not our intention. I am glad that she is not taking it personally and I am sure that, in time, her suggestion of user groups will be considered by the new senior committee as appropriate or when a specific issue is raised, because communication was certainly one problem we identified.
The themes the report threw up have been well mentioned: lack of clarity, buck-passing, delays, lack of accountability and lack of direction on occasions. The example used of printers and printer ink explains exactly the nature of the problem, and is one that everyone will remember indefinitely. Our stunned reaction when we first heard about it sums up much of the problem that the committee felt we were facing, as do our examples from the Refreshment Committee, which have been mentioned quite often.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, mentioned that the committees’ working is sometimes a mystery to those who are not on them; we found that it was sometimes just as much a mystery to those who were. That should not be the case and is often a problem for staff as well.
I think that our proposals create the right framework and are clear and straightforward. As everyone has mentioned, the detail is not finalised. These recommendations can be tweaked and considered. I heard what my noble friend Lady Cohen said about the Audit Committee, what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said about induction—something on which I think we would all agree—and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said about phasing in or transitional arrangements for the new system. What we just heard about the work of the Information Committee going forward could be particularly useful in that respect; those are important points.
However, there is a sense of urgency about this. We really need to act to strengthen the governance of this House, not least because we already have 64% joint working with the Commons—but, as others have mentioned, we are now moving on to the phase of restoration and renewal. It is important that we feel confident that we have the right structures in place in this House. The key in all we were trying to do was to get clarity in our structures and responsibilities. We need proper terms of reference for any committee of this House and proper systems of delegation, be it to the chair or to officers. We need to end the confusion that exists. That is particularly important not just for the good working of the House, but because we are talking about public funds. It is important that we have the degree of accountability and transparency that is the essence of good governance. Making those changes will benefit Members, who will know what decisions are being taken, why, and by whom. It will be significant for the staff of the House, officers and others who work in the House because they will have clearer instructions, there will be less possibility of confusing and conflicting instructions, and less scope for delays caused by prevarication and things being passed from one committee to another. We all have every reason to be grateful to those who work in this House. The evidence we got from members of staff through the drop-in centres told us of the difficulties that can arise for those who work here because of the confusions that exist.
We have got the framework right; we need to look at what might be the detail. I was glad that the Leader of the House made it clear that she would be willing to make sure that there are transitional arrangements. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, we have not been dotting “i”s and crossing “t”s—we have been creating a framework. It is not a mission statement but something practical, which will take us further forward. The remit we had from the Leader of the House was to ensure that domestic committee decision-making was effective, transparent and accountable. We have made a good start, and I hope the House will take the proposals further.
Strathclyde Review
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, opened this debate by posing three questions. First, he asked: is there a problem? I think that there is a problem, but not the one that he defined. Secondly, he asked: should we retain our veto? I am inclined to say that we should. Thirdly, he asked: was there scope for change? There is general agreement that there is scope for change, but his report is not a definitive answer.
I go back to the noble Lord’s first question on whether there is a problem. He quoted the events of 26 October in justification for the fact that there is a problem, yet he said today—I wrote down his words carefully—that the two noble Baronesses, my noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, cleverly found a form of words that did not break the convention. If they did not break the convention, why is the noble Lord quoting that as the case for the changes that he is suggesting? It makes it very puzzling—
Lord Strathclyde
I wonder if it would be worth clarifying that point. I completely stand by the words that the noble Baroness cited but they were in the context of saying that there was now more than one interpretation of what the convention actually was. There was the one propagated by the noble Baronesses while others, including me, regarded those Motions as being in practice fatal. Once you can no longer agree what the convention is then you have to have the kind of debate that we are now having.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
It was not the words of the Motions that were fatal but the political consequences that the Government were fearing, not least because their Members in another place then woke up to what these regulations were all about. The hype that we saw, which my noble friend Lady Smith mentioned, about the threats of extra Peers and the suspension of this House was more to do with the political consequences than the actual point about a convention being broken.
For several years, I was part of the business management team in the House of Commons. I was leader of the Commons and its Chief Whip; before that, I was the shadow leader of the House when Tony Newton was the leader of that House. One of the main problems that government business managers had—looking at what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said earlier, I think that it is the case on all sides—was in trying to keep Ministers realistic about what they could achieve in their legislation. They always wanted to do more and to have wide framework legislation. They always wanted to load the legislation so that a lot could be done by statutory instruments. There were mechanisms for dealing with that, but it was very difficult to contain Ministers at times.
We have to acknowledge that the whole process of using statutory instruments, while absolutely vital to the machinery of government, is or can be open to abuse. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that that is possibly the case with all Governments. I accept that there have been occasions when all Governments have pushed the limits further and further, but we are now in a new ball-game with the framework legislation that we get and in terms of the SIs. The example that the noble and learned Lord gave about the provisions in the Childcare Bill during the previous Session prove the point. The idea that you can make a criminal conviction through an SI is just outrageous and we should not even be contemplating it.
I think that we have a great deal of agreement this afternoon that we need change, but it is not a question of what changes need to affect this House. It is a question of what changes need to be implemented in Parliament as a whole to deal with the whole question of secondary legislation and how we scrutinise and hold the Government to account.
My noble friend Lady Smith reminded us of the difficulty in the House of Commons of getting Back-Benchers to serve on SI committees. It was and is a real problem, because people saw little mileage in it for themselves and very little point, because it is a very limited debate. Often, the problem was getting a quorum rather than being challenged on the issues thrown up. At the moment, we see minimal scrutiny in the House of Commons by government Back-Benchers who are told to keep quiet and opposition Back-Benchers who do not think that they will make any difference.
We have three problems here: framework Bills, the number of SIs—and, probably more importantly, their scope, which is much greater than it used to be—and the problem of lack of scrutiny in the House of Commons. When we are considering what the next stage should be, it should not be a simplistic Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has suggested; it should be a comprehensive look at this problem. We have had some interesting suggestions during this debate of a Joint Committee, with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, making some very pertinent points and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, talking about implications of financial privilege for SIs. I would say that most SIs have a financial implication. Are we to have a threshold or to say that we can never look at any of them?
There is general agreement on all sides of this House that this is a bigger problem than one of a convention that may or may not have been broken. Therefore, I urge the Government and the Leader of the House to think about not only what is convenient for this Government in the short-term but—I know that it is unlikely in the near future—what they may have to and want to do in opposition. Do not think about the short term, because that will not be good for Parliament as a whole. We have a big responsibility in this House to Parliament as a whole. That is the way that we should go forward in considering this issue.
Syria: UK Military Action
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, my entry in the register of interests shows that I am a director of a large French high-tech company. That is not relevant to this debate but I thought it would be best to mention it. I start by mentioning something that was touched on earlier; namely, the amount of abuse that has been levelled at people on both sides of this argument. This is a serious matter and it was totally wrong of the Prime Minister to call those who intend to vote against him “terrorist sympathisers”. It was even more wrong of him not to apologise today. But it has also been wrong for those who are against action to threaten and abuse those who are voting in a different Lobby.
I am also very worried about the amount of abuse that British Muslims are getting at the moment. This is something that we all have to be extremely aware of. I represented a constituency in West Yorkshire which had the largest mosque in Europe and I know that the majority of my former constituents not only have no links with Daesh or terrorism but do not want any, and they are appalled that they are being condemned because of the actions of a very few.
There has also been a problem with the way in which the media have presented the arguments. The word “war” conjures up blanket bombing. “Bombing Syria” conjures up a different picture from “bombing Daesh”. We have to be realistic that we are talking about a very complex situation in a very complex region. Yet on one level the decision that the Commons is being asked to make today is very simple: to extend the action against Daesh that was agreed by Parliament— by the large majority that was mentioned earlier—just over the boundary into Syria, when no one there recognises that boundary at all. Yes, there are problems about ground troops, which have been mentioned. Yes, there is a difficulty in giving extra time to Assad. But no one is suggesting that there is a quick solution or indeed an alternative solution. The basic fact is that if we do not engage in this activity, Daesh in Syria will be stronger and we will all be more vulnerable.
I just want to say a word about the actual Motion that is before Members of the Commons today. It is not perfect but it is very well written. It says specifically that,
“military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy”.
It talks about,
“the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks”.
It mentions,
“the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria”.
It talks about cutting Daesh’s source of finance and weapons and the,
“continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support”—
not enough. It makes it clear that our proposed air strikes will be only a part of that strategy, albeit a very important part.
The Vienna talks have been mentioned. We have to include the whole region and make all the countries in that region face their responsibilities for funding and assisting Daesh and for some of the doctrinaire ideas that are being propounded by some of the larger countries. There are difficulties here but it would be wrong to ignore the United Nations resolution that says we should take “all necessary measures”. We can do more to help in this situation. Military action is only one part of the solution—if there is a solution—but it is certainly not something that we should reject.
House of Lords Reform
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, in June of last year, this House debated extensively a report by a group of Labour Peers called A Programme for Progress: The Future of the House of Lords and its Place in a Wider Constitution. There was a great deal of consensus in that debate, and it was a very productive one. One of the things that we asked was that there should be a meeting of minds, led by the Leader of the House and others, to take the matter further. That was denied us, but I welcome the statement of the Leader of the House today that she intends to follow such a route. It was a very useful debate and the report is still available, by the way, free of charge. I hope that some people will look back at that, because some of the ideas discussed today are discussed in that report in some detail.
I share the very deep and genuine concern in this House about the Prime Minister’s recent list—both the numbers of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat nominees and the inclusion of the spads. It is damaging to the reputation of this House because trust in the appointments procedure is extremely important in terms of trust in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, pointed out earlier. Many people warned beforehand, but we are where we are: the damage has been done and, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I do not think that this is a normal situation. The figures that my noble friend Lady Smith provided earlier show that this is not the usual situation and it creates some problems for us.
The first problem relates to our reputation. It does none of us any good when these matters are raised and we see in the press a photograph of the State Opening, with everybody in robes, and comments such as, “They are nearly as big as the National People’s Congress of China”, with implications about how we operate. Incidentally, if anybody wants to improve the reputation of this House, we might think about whether it would be helpful not to wear robes at the State Opening. Perhaps that is a little too far for some people.
The numbers do affect us all: they affect our ability to do the job, as has just been pointed out. It is a strain on resources, on office facilities and on trying to speak in the House. Earlier, the Leader quite rightly mentioned the distinction between the top-line numbers and actual attendance daily. That is a very important distinction, but intakes over the last decade or so have seen an increasing number of working Peers. That increases the strain for everyone and changes the balance of the figures that she was talking about.
I have a couple of questions that I would like the Leader to deal with, because they are important and relevant to anything that we want to do to change things in future. The first concerns the party balance in the House, because we get contradictory messages here. What do the Government think is an appropriate party balance in this House? Traditionally, Governments have not sought a political majority here. My noble friend Lord Hunt talked earlier about the difficulties in the Labour Government years, where 33% of votes were lost by the Government. However, the PM seems to challenge that view, in the way that the former Deputy Prime Minister once did. Sometimes we hear that this House should reflect proportions in the Commons and sometimes those at the last election—they are not necessarily the same. I am concerned about what the situation might be, and that the Leader said earlier that we should complement the House of Commons. Our job is not to replicate what happens there but, as others said, to revise and scrutinise.
Another question is that I still do not understand why the Government are so opposed to a constitutional convention. Do they not understand the fragmentary nature of and some of the difficulties that we are storing up for the future with all the changes in Scotland and Wales, with EVEL, Northern Ireland and city regions? Those need to be looked at in the round. The role of this House in all that is important. When we suggested and discussed a constitutional convention in the past, we were told that it was being put into the long grass—or the “unmowable grass” as my noble friend Lord Richard used to say. If a constitutional convention had been established when we called for it, we might be nearer a solution to some of these problems today.
However, that is for the long term. We have talked today about some of the more immediate things that this House could do. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about the cap on numbers by the mixed election, which would be very appropriate. I do not think it matters where we draw the line between 450 and 600, we must just work towards that. We heard of separating the honours system and membership of this House. That is worth pursuing, as is perhaps membership and voting, which is interesting. Probably a majority of people favour ending the hereditary by-elections. I think a fixed term is an interesting proposition, be it 15 or 20 years. Minimum attendance and participation is a possibility. However, I do not like the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for a cull. That is fraught with dangers, difficulties and potential abuse. I am afraid the renewal system of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, did not excite me, except as a former Chief Whip because I would quite like to be a Chief Whip when that is operating.
All these ideas, which are not mutually exclusive, need considering and taking further. One incidental benefit of a discussion of this kind is that it makes us all consider our own individual position. Debates of this nature over the recent past have led to people thinking about when they will leave the House, when they should retire and what their future should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Luce, just said that there is a great deal of momentum on this issue; I agree. We had the work that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to on the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. The Lord Speaker has taken initiatives. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about what their individual parties are doing. However, I am afraid that none of this will get anywhere and that momentum will not translate into positive proposals unless the Government actually take this seriously. The comment that the Leader of the House made earlier was a bit vague. We would like to know more about what is proposed, particularly some indication of the timescale. We cannot leave all these issues in the air if we are to protect the workings and reputation of this House.
House of Lords
Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, because he has introduced a different element to this debate by referring to adjusting procedures. That is certainly something to which the House will need to return either on the back of this Motion or independently of it.
Like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for introducing this debate. Any debate that is aimed at improving the workings of this House has to be welcome. There is much that can be done and without primary legislation, although I have to say to the noble Lord that I have severe reservations about the notion that he has found the silver bullet. I am not sure that his system would work quite as he hopes.
I want to mention—it may be a question of declaring an interest—A Programme for Progress, the report that the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, referred to. It was drawn up by a group of Labour Peers and contains some short-term as well as some long-term measures for improving the working of this House and considering its long-term future. I co-chaired that group, along with Lord Grenfell, who took his own advice prematurely and retired from this House and is now rather well in exile. I am sure that we all send him our best wishes.
The starting point for this debate is the numbers in this House. It is a concern that has been mentioned many times today and many times in this House during recent months and years. There is general agreement that the size of the House is too great. It is clear that it has been the Prime Minister’s intention to put more political nominees in here and to seek to get near to a majority that has caused that rise in the numbers. I am in the strange position of being a former Chief Whip who agrees with a former Conservative Chief Whip that it is not a good idea for any political party to seek a majority in this House. This House works best and is most respected when it is clear that no political party dominates in this Chamber. The Government’s attempt to improve their position far beyond what is justified has not only created practical problems in terms of the number of people in the Chamber and the pressure on speaking times, with two-minute speaking limits and things of this kind, but it will undermine the credibility of this House, which would be most unfortunate. It is true that this House will always need refreshing, but I do not think that that has been the motivation behind the numbers that we have seen coming into it.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested that a Chamber of 400 would be about right. The Labour document to which I referred suggested 450, and I think that the Joint Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, chaired also suggested 450, taking into account the committee work that we do at present. However, I think the one thing that we all agree on is that the House of Lords, as the second Chamber, should be smaller than the House of Commons. That is a basic principle that we have to address and accept.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I think his mechanism is flawed. He said that there is no element of compulsion in his suggestion. He hinted that the expenses regime might be used to make sure that people were not rewarded for coming here if they were not on the esteemed list. As someone who lives some way from London, I think that would penalise Members of this House from the regions, as does the existing expenses regime, and would not be healthy for the mix we need to make this House most effective.
Our report recommended that for those who respond to the Writ of Summons at the beginning of a Parliament there should in future be a minimum attendance level, so that people could be “working Peers” and contributing. We must not think of contribution as simply being the equivalent of attendance—that is rather dangerous. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, talked about it being the work that matters. It is participation; it is speaking; it is voting—there we have another measure of how assiduous people are in what they do in this House. It would be wrong to give the impression that it is only turning up here that matters. Therefore, I am worried that a rather simplistic formula might cause problems.
I am also worried about the idea of frozen proportions: that the basis for future composition should be the proportions of Members at present. I have some concern about the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, of a changeover after every election. That kind of churn would not necessarily attract people to come into this House in the first place and to build up the experience to make the contributions that perhaps they could make. There is therefore a difficulty there, as there is with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, for internal elections. As a woman from the north, a category that is not overrepresented in this House, I would perhaps not be worried if we had allocations that way, but I would not want there to be divisions within parties of people who have to work together long-term to make the most of the opportunities in this House. That might not be helpful. Therefore, I do not like the churn that would be supposed to happen in that instance.
There are things that can be done to improve the workings of this House without the great constitutional reform such as is talked about from time to time. We should get rid of the hereditary by-elections; indeed, I would go further and have some primary legislation to end hereditary Peers’ rights to be in this House. Not all would agree, but I think that many people would.
I listened with care to what the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord MacGregor, said about financial inducements: that the figures show that a modest inducement could be of benefit to the taxpayer and that the Treasury might therefore accept it. I can see the logic of that, but politically it is a non-starter. Other people may disagree and it may be worth looking at in the future, but it would be difficult to sell to the public.
That leads me to the issue of retirement—the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, mentioned what we said in our report. We looked at this very carefully and we had people who were over 80 on that committee. We suggested that the concept of a working Peer is something that we should all take on board. When we respond to the Writ of Summons at the beginning of a Parliament, we should do so with the intention of giving a commitment to work and participate in this House for the full term of that Parliament. Whether we like it or not, we have fixed-term Parliaments at the moment. I do not like them and hope that they will go, but we have them so we should give a commitment to work for that whole Parliament.
We rejected the idea of, “You are 80, therefore you go on your birthday—party or not”. However, we said that it would help Members plan ahead if we introduced a system whereby they step down at the end of the Parliament in which they turn 80. The easing of that situation bears further consideration. I hope it is something we can look at in future. Political parties could also voluntarily agree to more transparent criteria in their nominations. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, just outlined the procedure that he went through. The fact that there is no procedure in terms of political appointees is something that could be changed, and could be done voluntarily.
However, I hope we do not see a great new influx of political appointees. I suspect that I am wrong and that it will not be possible to achieve this, but I would like to see some restraint. I would like to see a moratorium on political appointments in future, especially as we are now coming up to the manifesto period. We keep hearing that all three parties will say, one way or another, “Get rid of the House of Lords”. If all three parties want to get rid of this House, perhaps they should not nominate new Members to it. I am not sure that, when we have four months of constant campaigning, a manifesto will be read or raised by anyone, but there are issues we have to consider.
The way to get through to what we should be doing long-term is obvious and inevitable: that is, to have a constitutional convention that can make sure that we do not have a whole series of piecemeal constitutional reforms that do not hang together and which, in the end, lead to unintended consequences. That would be very dangerous to good government and certainly to accountability. As for short-term measures, I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, that he could smell a conspiracy here. It is very likely that the Procedure Committee may intend to look at these proposals but if so I urge that it also looks at the debate that took place on 19 June on the Labour Party’s proposals, where there was a great deal of consensus that many of those issues should be looked at in great detail. That is the way forward because we should not have knee-jerk reactions one way or another to some of the issues raised.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
I apologise for intervening but there is one question that the noble Baroness might be able to inform the House on. Did Mr Miliband consult the Labour reform group before saying he would like to see a senate in this House?
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
Noble Lords might be interested to know that the Labour group met with the party leader on more than one occasion. We talked to him about our proposal for a constitutional convention. We are very pleased indeed that he said that issues of that kind will be referred to a constitutional convention. If we could get other parties to agree that that was the way forward, we could have a time limit on how long that constitutional convention was to sit. We could write a remit that could be very tight and specific. I really believe that that would be the way to ensure that we do not get into the constitutional chaos that would come about unless we look at all these issues together in the round.