House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

I haven’t said anything yet!

I should begin by saying that I too very much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and to the sad occasion of the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.

In the last 25 years, excluding the two ecclesiastical Measures, only three Bills containing substantial reform of our House have had a Second Reading in government time. The last of those was in October 2014. Thus, the Bill before us is a rare opportunity for this House not just to talk about our reform, but to engage in it. Although the subject matter of the Bill that has arrived in this House is small, the available scope is much larger, and in the amending stages the House will want to consider thoroughly other potential reforms.

As I have remarked before, the British constitution is a three-legged stool, one each for the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary. Major change by the Executive to the legs of the stool needs to be undertaken with great care, especially if the net effect of the change is to accrue more power to one or other of the legs. I would also underline again the importance of ensuring that, following any major change, the Salisbury convention runs smoothly. I will come back to this.

In giving evidence to the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in May, I commented that there were three unfairnesses in the make-up of the membership of our House: the hereditaries, the bishops, and the unlimited and unfettered power of the Prime Minister to make appointments to this House. The greatest unfairness, I continue to feel, is this last one, which is both most powerful and vested in one person. The Prime Minister’s very large power is without precedent in any other liberal democracy, and however comfortable we may feel about our recently elected Government today, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs going forward for a major liberal democracy.

In 2017 the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee produced their seminal report about the size of the House and, by implication, some sort of conventional cap on the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers. We unanimously endorsed it. Many of those who were a part of that endorsement are on the Front Benches of the major groupings here today. In any event, we all remember our agreed target of 600. This Bill is the first suitable vehicle to have arrived that could assist in reaching this target.

The constitutional reform section of the Government’s manifesto contains six separate propositions that involve this House. To the extent that each of these would require primary legislation, we will inevitably discuss them as the Bill progresses. The first proposition concerns the hereditary unfairness, and is the subject matter of the Bill. The second is the proposal to restrict the age of Members of this House. While the specific proposal in the manifesto does not, I feel, quite work, producing as it does large numbers of departing Members at the end of a Parliament, the underlying point is a clear manifesto commitment. I feel that the introduction of an age limit for newly created peers would be a good idea; it would mean amending Section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958. To introduce age limits on the existing membership would be a very large organisational shock. That is not necessary and should be avoided.

The route of implementing a new retirement age for newcomers only was chosen by the senior England and Wales judiciary 40 or so years ago. In that case only newly promoted senior judges had the new retirement age. Existing judges were unaffected. The exercise was deemed a success, and it turned out that many of those who could have continued retired at the new limit in any event. I would expect that to happen here, and I estimate that if only one in five of those protected stood back, 50 extra colleagues might retire this Parliament.

The third proposition in the Government’s manifesto concerns addressing participation. My office estimates that changing the requirement for Members to attend from at least one day per Session, pursuant to Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, to 10% of the days sat in a Session, could affect as much as 20% of the Cross-Benchers alone. Some Peers would clearly choose to sit a few extra days, but I still believe that such a required level could reduce House numbers by getting on for 100 Peers. I am in favour of this as well.

Those three changes—participation, age limits and the provisions on the hereditaries in this Bill—could thus represent more than 200 Members leaving this Parliament. Even allowing for necessary government reinforcements, we would then have a House of about or below our target of 600.

I will finish on conventions. The Salisbury/Addison convention is at the core of a successful relationship between the Lords and the Executive. The modern version has served us well, but it should be renewed as part of our reform processes, in particular to address the upward trend in ping-pong. We have been playing ping-pong on more Bills, with more balls and longer rallies. A renewed Salisbury/Addison convention would benefit relations between Parliament and the Executive so that the Government could have confidence that their manifesto Bills would move through our House at reasonable pace.

However, to preserve the balance of the constitutional stool I started with, the Prime Minister’s power of appointment must also be addressed. A proportionate thing would be for the Prime Minister to enter into a new convention whereby 600 Members was our conventional limit, and the Prime Minister agreed to take advice on propriety and suitability from HOLAC. I feel that we should grasp these opportunities. But as we seek to navigate these difficult waters, I repeat that at all times we must balance constitutional security, the proper relationship between Parliament and the Executive, and the words of the Government’s manifesto.

House of Lords Reform

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I too add my thanks to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for bringing this important debate to the House today, and for her warm words personally to me just now.

As I have remarked before, the British constitution is a three-legged stool, one each for the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary. Major change by the Executive to the legs of the stool needs to be undertaken with great care, especially if the net effect of those changes is that more power is accrued to one or other of the legs. I underline also the importance of ensuring that, following any major change, the Salisbury convention runs smoothly. I will come to that in greater detail shortly.

The constitutional reform section of the Government’s manifesto contains six separate propositions that involve this House. The first two are in the same paragraph, and are the proposals to remove the hereditaries and restrict the age of Members of the House. This second proposition says:

“Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords”.


I remind people that, if enacted, these two propositions would see the departure by the end of this Parliament of about half the Peers present at the start of it—by any measure, a major change. The number for the Cross Benches, given our slightly older average age, is closer to 60%.

In giving evidence to the PACAC committee in the Commons in May, I commented that there were three unfairnesses in the current make-up of the membership of this House: the hereditaries, the Bishops, and the unlimited and unfettered power the Prime Minister has to make appointments to this House. The greatest unfairness, I continue to feel, is this last one, which is both very powerful and vested in one person. The changes proposed in the Government’s manifesto would add power to the Prime Minister, so that what is already a very large power without precedent in any other liberal democracy is increased. Indeed, the vesting of great power in one person is at the core of the problems we face with authoritarian regimes around the world. However comfortable we might feel with our freshly elected Government today, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs going forward for a major liberal democracy.

In 2017, the noble Lord, Lord Burns—he says, looking for the noble Lord—and his committee produced their seminal report about the size of the House and, by implication, some sort of conventional cap on the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers. We unanimously endorsed it. Many of those who were part of that endorsement are on the Front Benches of the major groupings present today. In any event, we all remember our agreed target of 600. We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, shortly.

The third Labour proposition concerns addressing participation. My office estimates that changing the requirement for Members to attend from at least one day per Session, which is pursuant to Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, to 10% of the days sat in a Session would affect around 20% of the House. Some Peers would choose to sit a few extra days, clearly, but I still believe that such a new required level would reduce our numbers—and quickly—by at least 12.5%, or 100 Peers. I am in favour of this.

I feel that the introduction of an age limit for newly created Peers would be a good idea. It would mean amending Section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958. As my figures on the percentage of the existing membership of the House who would be affected show, introducing age limits on the existing membership would be a large organisational shock that is not necessary and should be avoided. A transitional arrangement is clearly called for.

For similar reasons, this route of implementing a new retirement age on newcomers only was chosen by the England and Wales judiciary 40 years or so ago. In that case, only newly promoted senior judges had the new retirement age; existing judges were unaffected. The exercise was deemed a success. It turned out that some of those who could have continued retired at the new limit in any event, and I would expect that to happen here. If only one in five of those protected stood back, I estimate that an additional 50 colleagues might retire in this Parliament. The three changes—participation, age limits and the hereditaries Bill—could thus represent 240 or so Members leaving this Parliament. We would have a House at or below our target of 600.

I turn to conventions. Last year, my office produced a series of papers on the Salisbury/Addison convention, which is at the core of a successful relationship between the Lords and the Executive. The modern version of this convention came into being post war to assist a Labour Administration facing a non-Labour House of Lords. It has served us well, but it will need to be renewed as part of our reform process, in particular to address the upwards trend in ping-pong. We have been playing ping-pong on more Bills, with more balls and longer rallies. It is a trend, and the trend is still rising. We must tackle it.

For Parliament to come willingly into this programme of reform, the Prime Minister’s power of appointment must also be addressed. The proportionate thing would be for the Prime Minister to enter into a new convention whereby 600 Members was our conventional limit and the Prime Minister agreed to take advice on propriety and suitability from HOLAC. I know that others will develop the theme of HOLAC, and I will listen with great interest; but I believe that there is an appetite here in the House today for an ambitious programme of reform along my four lines—hereditaries, participation, age limits and conventions—and we should grasp the opportunity. However, as we seek to navigate these difficult waters, we must at all times balance constitutional security, the proper relationship between Parliament and the Executive, and the words of the Government’s manifesto.

Scotland

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if they have not, they should be. The industrial strategy is the core of our mission for economic growth, and the meetings so far have been very positive. We have published the Green Paper, which will kick-start our programme on this. It is a modern industrial strategy for the days and years ahead for this country. It will be published next spring, and it will be in line with the multiyear spending review. Unless we take advantage and make the most of growth across the whole of the UK, we will deny the people of Scotland and of this country the benefits of a strong economy that they deserve.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the last quarterly report on intergovernmental relations between the four Governments was produced by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, as it then was, and it arrived in December last year. Will these quarterly reports still be produced? Will they move to the Cabinet Office?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not have a precise answer for the noble Earl, but I will look into this. It is important that this is at the heart of government, with the responsibility lying there. I am confident that we will find a way of making progress and of marking that progress in a way that is easily understood. I will take a precise note of the noble Earl’s question and come back to him with a fuller answer.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on her becoming the Leader of our House and wish her well in the times to come. I wanted to talk about the European Political Community. It is a young child. It began only in 2022 and this was the fourth meeting of it. Forty-three Heads of Government and Heads of State came to Blenheim Palace, which was a remarkable result; 24 of them were from the EU, indicating just how much of the community is outside the EU. The original intention was to have not only a meaty agenda but quite a lot going on in the margins. Indeed, this time there is a report on what sounded like a very important meeting in the margins regarding Moldova. However, the Prime Minister in his Statement did not say anything about his general enthusiasm for the political community, which is still a young child. It is something for which he is going to need the enthusiasm to drive it through—we have just heard that the fifth meeting is on 7 November, and the sixth meeting will be in Albania next year. However, it is important to have an expression from the Government of how valuable this format is, both for what is on the agenda and for what takes place in the margins.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I totally agree with the noble Earl. I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not sound enthusiastic enough for him. The tone was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but perhaps he has put some greater enthusiasm on it. The Prime Minister is very enthusiastic about this, and he welcomed the opportunity to host such a meeting at Blenheim Palace, given its historical significance. Apparently, some of the union’s leaders and those of other countries said that they had visited before and seen around the grounds but had never been inside the palace itself. It was a bit of soft power being used to great effect at that point.

When we have international problems, they need international solutions and the breadth of the countries there. The noble Lord is right: there was the formal meeting but, as every one of us who has attended conferences will know, the informal part is where people get to know and talk to each other. In those informal meetings, one builds up relationships. When things get difficult and one might have to impart a difficult message or exchange stronger views, having had that informal as well as a formal relationship will help those discussions take place. I can assure the noble Lord that the Prime Minister is very enthusiastic about the EPC, as are the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and others who were there. It is something that we want to build on and see as a cornerstone of a lot of the relationships we will have with others around the world.

Business of the House

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as the House is aware, the noble Lord the Leader, when the words “Liberal Democrat” are mentioned, is normally at his most benevolent. I have found that, during the time in which he has been Leader of your Lordships’ House, that has indeed been the case in his relations with me. I have greatly appreciated that, whatever differences we may have on great issues of state, when it has come to how we manage your Lordships’ House, he has been a model of helpfulness. It is worth reflecting briefly that, in your Lordships’ House, leaders of the parties and the Chief Whips work closely together and try, to the best of our feeble abilities, to ensure that we manage your Lordships’ House in a way that is helpful to Members.

This has been an extraordinary Parliament; what we achieved during Covid was truly remarkable, but it was only because of the history of working together that it was possible in those circumstances. I echo the Leader’s thanks to all those with whom I have worked across parties to try to ensure that, even though differences on issues of state have been very deep indeed, as always, we have been able to manage the way we have dealt with them in a grown-up way and without personal relations suffering, even though we do not always agree. I equally thank my colleagues—my Chief Whip, and Front-Bench and Back-Bench colleagues, who have worked very hard to make the lives of the noble Lord, Lord True, and his colleagues such a misery—very much indeed.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I rise on behalf of my colleagues on my Benches to say something very similar. The Leader has, of course, a double-hatted role, and has walked very well the line between being the leader of his party and the Leader of us as a House. I pay tribute to his good humour and hard work. Indeed, last Friday I found myself speaking to him. I had to admit that I was standing in the middle of a field in Perthshire; he was at his desk and said that he had a lot of papers before him. He works very hard, and has always been readily available from the smallest to the biggest of matters. It has been an enormous privilege to have worked with him. I think that the entire Cross Bench feels that he has acted as Leader of the House in a quite exemplary manner; we pay tribute to that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief, having spoken already, but want to add my thanks. It is an honour and a privilege to be a Member of this House. When I first came in, someone said to me, “Oh, you’re going to the House of Lords? They don’t do party politics up there, do they?” I think the difference is that we have learned to disagree agreeably, which is important in the debates we have.

I thank the Leader. He is the third Leader of this House that I have worked with, and I have enjoyed working with him. His customary courtesy to this House has been highly regarded; as the Convenor says, he is the Leader of the House as well as leader of his party, and that can be a challenge at times, as we know. I think he has met that challenge.

On behalf of my party, the current Official Opposition, I also thank all the staff of the House for all the work they do—the cleaners, the caterers, the doorkeepers; I hesitate to leave anybody out. Without their support for the work we do, we could not do it as well as we want to do it.

I also thank all my colleagues, particularly my Chief Whip and Front Bench, but also my Back-Bench colleagues on this side of the House and across the House. We have a job of work to do, and I think we do it as diligently and as well as we can. We may not always get it right, but we always have the interests of the nation at heart. I thank the Leader for his courtesy in his current role.

Death of a Member: Lord Judge

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Thursday 9th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships’ House, it was with great shock and sadness that I heard of Lord Judge’s death. I know that he was a devoted father and grandfather; he once told me with great pride that his role when the family went sea-bathing was to hold all the towels—he never dreamed of getting in the sea himself. Our thoughts today are primarily with his family as they mourn his loss.

I had my first long conversation with Lord Judge while sitting next to him at the first Queen’s Speech he attended as Convenor. He told me that he had been a great collector of 15th century manuscripts. We then spoke about the history of the period and the start of the Tudor dynasty. It was this great love and knowledge of the period that had alerted him to Henry VIII’s role in taking from Parliament some of its traditional legislative power. From this understanding sprang his deep antipathy for the current use of such powers, on which he spoke with such passion and persistence.

His speeches exhibited the hallmarks of a fine legal mind. He was crystal clear. He could explain the most complex arguments in language that everyone could readily understand. He was succinct: Igor rarely, if ever, made a long speech. He got straight to the point and when he had made it, he sat down. And he was ruthless: he was the master of asking Ministers the unanswerable question. As they floundered in response, he would pin them with a quizzical frown.

But he was much more than a great legal brain. He was witty. He saw the ridiculous side of some of the things we do in your Lordships’ House with a clear eye, a despairing shake of the head and an often hilarious response. He was a great reader of people. He had the measure of us all and would sometimes, in an unguarded moment, let a privileged few know what he really thought of some of his colleagues. It was not always totally complimentary, but it was usually correct.

He was wise. His reading and understanding of history, coupled with his long and distinguished career at the Bar, gave him a broad perspective from which to make judgments and give opinions—not just on the great issues of state, but also on the many arcane issues on which he was expected to express an opinion on the innumerable internal committees of your Lordships’ House on which he sat.

Finally, he was kind. There was a warmth about him, which was expressed with a sympathetic smile, a slightly cocked listening ear and a kind word.

I fear that he did not completely succeed in his campaign to expunge Henry VIII powers from new pieces of legislation. It now falls on the rest of us to pick up this baton. In doing so, we will not just be doing it for the good governance of the country: we will be doing it for Igor.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, there is no such thing as a speech too short; a maxim I first heard from Igor before I entered the House. I thank the three speakers so far on behalf of our Benches—I need the advice as well—for the contributions, which have been so measured and have brought a lot of pleasure in listening to them.

Igor, of course, was born in Malta in 1941 during the siege that lasted 18 months. Malta was the most bombed place in Europe and was devastated. He told me he ascribed his humility and, I think, his kindness to the fact he lived in this wasteland for the first few years of his life. I always wondered how someone could go through his career and be so successful and yet have that humility and kindness. Of course, we know that Igor’s father, Raymond, was called Judge, but what most people do not know is that his remarkable mother, Rosa, had a maiden name of Micaleff, which is the Maltese word for judge. Igor observed to me that he had, therefore, very little choice in his chosen profession.

At 13, he came to school in England at the Oratory, where a fellow pupil was the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, who reminded me last night of Igor’s prowess at cricket, and said he had a reputation from that early age for sagacity and integrity. From there he went to Magdalene, Cambridge, and he was called to the Bar in 1963. He met Judith shortly after this; many people have already said what a strong marriage that was and how founded in love. I have been in touch with Judith; I hope she is watching today, and I know that some of her family are. Igor described her as his better half, which was a lovely way of doing so. He took enormous pride in his three children and that great clutch of grandchildren. In my many discussions with him over the past few months as he was mentoring me, the conversation—just like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was saying—immediately wandered across to his grandchildren and the great pride that he had in their careers.

His legal career meant that he spent 32 years sitting on various Benches. I know that many will want to speak today to talk about appearing before him at the various levels. Everyone always felt that not only was he utterly competent but that he was prepared to listen to whatever the barrister concerned had to say. Anyway, to achieve presidency of the Queen’s Bench Division and go on to Lord Chief Justice was something amazing. To then come here and be such a great parliamentarian and colleague, who was always patient and always there, is something we should all aspire to, and I suspect we will not see it again in our lives.

When he arrived here, he did not shirk the challenge: he concentrated his political energies on the great balance between Parliament and the Executive. His weapons of choice were wit and that lethal logic. He briefly held the record for the size of a government defeat on one of the amendments in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but he took no pleasure in that. He took pleasure only when, eventually, the point that he wanted to have included was conceded by the Government. I recently spent some time discussing Cross-Bench voting patterns with Igor—something that has come up in speeches over the last couple of days. He was of the view that a vote against the Government was motivated either by opposition to that Government or by a desire to improve law; he voted only using this latter principle.

Igor had many great passions and interests. He loved cricket, having captained the Oratory, and was naturally considering whether to challenge the Government to a match given the recent addition of the noble Lord, Lord Botham, to our ranks. He discussed this in some detail with his private personal physician and equal cricket fan, the noble Lord, Lord Patel. He loved poetry, especially TS Elliot, and used to come bouncing into the Cross-Bench office reciting Elliot’s poems, which are incredibly complicated, but he never had a problem with that.

He loved Leicester City. Among his fellow fans are the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I know he was hopeful of trying to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to renounce and give up Millwall and come over to the blues.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

Many matters between the UK and the EU remain in cold storage: Horizon, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said; the agreement to have co-operation in financial services regulation; and, indeed, the 24 committees that exist under the trade and co-operation agreement, which today are operational but are not truly operating to the benefit of all 500 million people concerned. Could the Minister say what has been agreed with the European Union about the speed of the thaw—the speed with which these things can be started up—now that we are set on a new track of a relationship?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have only just served out breakfast to your Lordships’ House, so I am not going to describe when we might reach dinnertime. I think that the intent and aim is there that we should proceed constructively. Indeed, the Windsor Framework envisages not consent mechanisms but mechanisms for consideration and discussion of some of the aspects of the agreement going forward. Nor am I going to speculate on specific instances or committees. I repeat that, in these difficult times, when we face peril and violence in eastern Europe among other things, we hope that the earnest and the spirit that the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission both put on the table will be fruitful in many ways.

Ukraine

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The noble Lord is right; that is certainly an area we are looking at. He will know that we have put a UK cyber sanctions regime into force to ensure that the consequences of malign cyber activity are felt. We have specialist teams of cyber experts and intelligence analysts working round the clock to detect, decipher and deter Russian threats. We are also investing £2.6 billion in cyber and IT capabilities over the next three years.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I must say, it was good to hear of the strong co-operative approach with our European friends and neighbours; I very much welcome all that was announced today. Less good, however, was today’s news that one of the armoured columns started the morning in Belarus. The Belarusian leadership has been acting as cheerleaders from the side for Mr Putin on this. Can the Leader comment on that and confirm to us that the sanctions regime that will hit Belarus will be equally as tough and strong as the one that will hit Russia for this infamous act of brutality?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

Yes. In the Statement, it was quite clear that the sanctions will also be applied to Belarus for its role.

Covid-19

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will speak remotely and I invite her to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Leader of the House just said that there is no advice for people who were formerly shielding, the clinically extremely vulnerable, but there is; the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, confirmed this to me last night. It says that this group should still consider meeting people only 14 days after they have been fully vaccinated, social distancing, asking friends and family to have rapid lateral flow antigen tests, asking any visitors to their homes to wear face coverings and not going into enclosed crowded spaces. Putting this guidance on a website is not the same as telling this group of people, or the wider public, especially their employers, directly that this group still need to take care. Will the Leader take this back and ensure that communications go to this vulnerable group of just under 4 million people?

United Kingdom–European Union Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, it is open to my noble friend and indeed any Member of this House to table a Parliamentary Question or a debate on a related subject, so I hope that my noble friend will feel able to elicit information that she needs from Ministers in that way.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB) [V]]

I know first-hand of the warmth that the European Parliament feels towards the parliamentary partnership assembly. In his capacity both as Deputy Leader of the House and deputy leader of his party, could the Minister return that warmth? Does he agree that there should be a strong interparliamentary dimension as part of a successful mix in our new relationship with the European Union?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his work on behalf of the House in his capacity as chair of your Lordships’ European Affairs Select Committee. He makes a very good point, and one thinks of other parliamentary assemblies that are perhaps analogous in some respects, such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and that of the OSCE, although their respective functions are of course different and distinct.