Environment and Climate Change Committee

Debate between Lord Balfe and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

I have one question, and a couple of observations, on what will probably be the Senior Deputy Speaker’s last outing in this House. I am sure we all admire the work that he has done in his many years in the job.

The withdrawal agreement from the EU provides for the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee between the British Parliament and the European Parliament. I wonder whether the Senior Deputy Speaker can give us any information as to how the House of Lords is to be represented in that committee, and whether we will be taking one of either the chair or the three vice-chairs of that committee. I happen to know, because I wear several hats in this game, that the European Parliament has already decided on its chair and vice-chairs, so I just wonder what we are doing, who is leading for us and how it will fit into that structure.

My second point is that we seem to have again arrived at this position through some sort of magical mystery tour. We are told that the Committee of Selection has done this, but who has it approached? I have not seen anything. I have not been asked whether I would like to serve on a committee. How do these names come forward? I suggest that they come forward because all that we say about this being a self-regulating House is basically a load of old rubbish. The leadership runs this House. We are pushed around in whatever way a very small group of people chooses. It really is as simple as that.

I would like the Senior Deputy Speaker to follow the great tradition of leaving a note for one’s successor. He does not need to leave a note saying that there is no money left, but I think he could well leave a note saying that there is a call from some quarters—they may be unrepresentative, but I would certainly like to see it—for much greater democratisation.

In the other place, the chairs of committees are allocated to the political groups and then elected by the whole House on the basis that it can look and decide what the competencies are of those committees and the chairs can have the confidence of the House. They are not plucked out of some magical hat somewhere. I would like to see that procedure extended to this House. Clearly it cannot be done in this resolution, but I am getting a bit fed up with constantly going on about this. If the issue comes back yet again, with another series of committees and no movement whatever, I might just be tempted to divide the House—although I would lose—to prove that there are probably at least two people who support what I have got to say.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak but will say just a brief word. I cannot speak for the noble Lord’s party, but I assure him that we on these Benches have a very open process of selection for committees. All Members are notified of committee vacancies; they are asked to apply and, in consultation, the Chief Whip makes a decision and our group discusses it. He obviously has grievances with his own group, for which I cannot speak, but I am looking at my colleagues behind me and know that they do not share those grievances.

Conduct Committee Report

Debate between Lord Balfe and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My view is that all money received by Members of the House of Lords should be declared. This report tries to do what is virtually impossible, which is to lay down a code of conduct that, by its own nature, is vague. I have a number of questions.

As regards the guidance on dealing with lobbyists, the report states:

“Members should be especially cautious when coming into contact with representatives of corrupt or repressive regimes”.


The noble and learned Lord who introduced the report is a lawyer. He will know that the word “representatives” is certainly capable of challenge. What is a representative? What is a corrupt regime? What is a repressive regime? Is Hungary a repressive regime? If someone is in contact with a representative of the Hungarian Government, at what level does the rule apply? Is the ambassador of Hungary a representative of a repressive regime? This report is shot through with problems.

The next page covers the level of remuneration in respect of the interests falling within this category that need to be disclosed only where they are received from the Governments of foreign states. What do we mean by “foreign states” or “controlled by”? Is Huawei controlled by the Chinese Government, as is alleged by some, or is it not controlled by them, as is said by the Chinese Government? What about what I would call “parastatal” regimes—in other words, bodies that are set up at arm’s length by Governments such as the British Government to provide services? Is Serco a parastatal regime and company, or is it not? This is just not good enough.

On applying for exemptions, how will we explain to the British public that Members of the House of Lords can take earnings from organisations and not declare them? That is what this says: earnings do not have to be declared because of confidentiality. We can have confidential agreements made by legislators who can subsequently intervene on legislation, but there is no public record of that. It is not good enough.

My final point is about

“disposing once in respect of each financial year.”

If I visit Turkey, which I did not so long ago, I have to declare that within two months. Why, if we have this system, could someone earn money in May 2021 and not have to declare it until January 2023? Why the sudden difference? I do not think that this is acceptable.

I will not vote against the report because that is not the done thing, but I do not think that it answers the question that was put before it, which is to make the proceedings of this House and the activities of its Members more transparent. I am sorry to rock the boat again, but these things need to be said.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I have two points: both have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, but in a slightly different way. I have a query about paragraph 16 of the report which states:

“Members should be especially cautious when coming into contact with representatives of corrupt or repressive regimes, ensuring that they uphold the integrity of the parliamentary process and the reputation of the House of Lords at all times.”


That is a bit unclear—I am not sure what it means or who would make that decision.

My other point is on the paragraph about confidentiality, which might more appropriately be called exemptions. The noble and learned Lord might be able to help me to understand this. The report states:

“We are aware that in a small number of professions there is a duty of confidentiality”—


I can think of only one, which is the medical profession, and I am not sure whether the others might possibly be to do with the legal profession. The report goes on

“which would make it difficult for members to disclose the identity of the government”

but then proposes that

“members … would be able to apply for an exemption from the registration requirement.”

Does that mean that they would not have to register anything at all, not even having received any money if that was the case? I can understand that there might be an element of confidentiality, although I struggle to understand whether that is essential, but I do not see why that should completely exempt Members from the registration requirement.

I also have concerns about the personal services company element because I am not clear about how it will work. The report states that Members

“need to register the type of client involved but without naming the particular client in question.”

I am not convinced that that is 100% helpful to the House or to those looking at this, but my main question is who makes the decision. In paragraph 9 under definitions, it states:

“Although the Registrar may be consulted, members will be responsible for judging whether an organisation or individual meets this definition, and in case of doubt they should err on the side of registration.”


The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, helpfully said that the Conduct Committee will issue guidance for the registrar, but I am not clear who will make the decision that an exemption is appropriate. Given that exemption brings with it the opportunity not to make any form of registration at all or to provide any information, I would like some clarity on who will make the decision. If it is the same as in paragraph 9, which states that the individual Member can make that decision, that seems somewhat unhelpful to this House and to the issue of transparency.

I will not seek to divide the House or to vote against the Motion because it is an important step forward and there are a lot of areas in which the report is helpful, but I would like clarity on those points if the noble and learned Lord is able to give them to me.

Hereditary Peers’ By-elections

Debate between Lord Balfe and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 7th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

We are clearly a long way from being back to normal. I endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Cormack, because we need to get back to normal. We could get many more people in this Chamber, but we also need some willpower behind the need to get back to normal. A certain lassitude and reluctance to get things done seems to have descended on us. We certainly should not be having by-elections until we get back to normal. The Procedure and Privileges Committee will meet in December, I believe—certainly before this new Motion expires on New Year’s Eve. The middle of a vacation does not, in any case, seem a very good date for it to expire, particularly since the Deputy Lord Speaker may, in the tradition of his country, be somewhat busy on New Year’s Eve.

I would like the Procedure and Privileges Committee to look at the need for these by-elections and whether we should make time for the Grocott Bill to be heard. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, had to say, but the Grocott Bill will not remove a single Peer from this House: it allows them to die away, over the course of half a century. Some would say that that is an extremely generous way to treat them, but it has nothing to do with the Conservative Party.

We have to start standing up for ourselves. My noble friend Lord Cormack made reference to the Library and the rule brought in when Queen Victoria created a life Peer, and that was turned down. It goes back a lot further than that, however. I read the Library report, but there was also something in the New Statesman and I asked the Library for an account of what had happened in relation to life Peers. I read a debate from around 1860, I think, and I can inform the House that life peerages go back to the reign of Henry III, in the 13th century.

There have been regular life peerages. They used to end them by chopping off the heads of the Lords when they fell from favour. This is no longer recommended procedure, but I have had advice from an extraordinarily senior source to the effect that the sovereign creates but the House sits, and we would be within our powers to amend our Standing Orders to create a queue for Peers waiting to take their seats, as my noble friend Lord Cormack suggested. The size of the House would be determined and there would be a Burns-style distribution, based perhaps on previous elections or other criteria: there would be an allocation to each party.

At the moment I often look at the ranks of the Labour Party—my former party—and I feel a bit sorry for them, because they could do with strengthening, frankly. Democracy in this House relies on having a strong Opposition, not just strong Conservative Benches; it needs to be much wider than that.

I would therefore like to see this Motion passed and the noble Lord, Lord Burns—or, if he thinks it is a poisoned chalice, someone else—to look, in the way suggested, at the means by which this House can implement the desires it endorsed at the time of the Burns report. We have weapons in our armoury that could be used. Although it saddens me to say so, I do not think that the present Prime Minister will follow our advice unless there is some strength behind it—the ability to say, “No, you cannot do that” and the powers to stop it. Otherwise, we will be ridden roughshod over. I therefore support the Motion. I ask the Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider coming back to this House before the end of December with its thoughts, and that this House look at limiting our numbers, getting a legislative or rule-based way of doing it, and saying to the Government, “Fine, you create, but we will admit”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

This has been a rather wider-ranging debate than either I or probably the noble Lord, Lord McFall, as Senior Deputy Speaker, anticipated. I agree with the point the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, made about the Prime Minister not listening to advice. I think the only advice he listens to is that of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Cummings. Perhaps if we could persuade him, we might have more success in him treating the House and Parliament with some respect.

I had not expected the debate to go back to the 13th century. The House of Lords sometimes looks backwards rather than forwards, but it does not often go quite so far back. I think this illustrates the scale of the problem. We are dealing with something here and now, and the Motion before us has my full support. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the most telling point. If local government elections have been stopped around the country and the public are not entitled to elect, it would be nonsensical for an unelected House to elect one of its few elected Members to this place.

I want to put on record that this is a policy issue. This is not about the merits or otherwise of any individual who serves in this House, by whichever route they come in. All Members of your Lordships’ House are welcomed. In fact, most of us really do not know who are the life Peers and who are the hereditary Peers, except those who make an effort to defend the continuation of the hereditary principle ad infinitum with the temporary position introduced in 1999.

I disassociate myself from some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which is unusual. We all want to get back to working as normally as possible as soon as possible, but we can do so only in realms that make us safe. Indeed, my understanding is that no Member of your Lordships’ House has wanted to speak physically but not been able to attend physically. We have to respect those who for many reasons—whether for travel or because they live in hot-spot areas or for their own medical conditions—wish to participate remotely. I think we do better than the House of Commons in that regard.

Finally, on the comments made about the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, he was unable to be with us today. For very understandable reasons, he would want to be here. I am sorry the noble Lord made that comment. It would be remiss of me not to mention his Bill. It has had the overwhelming support of your Lordships’ House on many occasions. It is not fit for today’s House of Lords to have by-elections for hereditary peerages. The only reason we do not have that Bill, and have the Motion before us today, is that the Government do not want it. We have invited the Government many a time to say, “We will help give this a speedy passage through Parliament”, but because of the processes, a few Peers who do not support it have blocked that Bill with parliamentary vandalism tactics. We will return to that Bill, but I make a plea to the Government. It is a Bill that has the overwhelming support of your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, gave a way forward on the size of the House, and that is one issue, but the Motion before us has nothing to do with that. It is about having a sensible process: we should not have by-elections to your Lordships’ House in the current circumstances. It has my full support.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Balfe and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 20, in the names of my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord Lennie and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and also to comment on the other amendments that have been spoken to already. This amendment is on the conduct of negotiations and the key issues on which we believe the Prime Minister should give an undertaking to have regard to the public interest as she negotiates. Those issues are,

“maintaining a stable and sustainable economy … preserving peace in Northern Ireland … trading”—

and tariff-free trading—and co-operating on a number of issues, including,

“education, health, research and science, environmental protection … domestic security, and … crime and … maintaining all existing social, economic, consumer and workers’ rights”.

I suppose it was inevitable that, during the week of the Oscars, there would be one group of amendments that would remind us of a famous film. As much as I would like to cheer the Minister up, I am afraid that I am not going to cast him as some dashing hero in a “Superman” film—I can see the disappointment on his face—but instead refer to the political and satirical comedy, “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”, specifically the “Before the Romans” sketch, which some noble Lords will recall. We can all picture the scene: the People’s Front of Judea is meeting to plot its campaign against the Romans. In a rhetorical question, Reg—otherwise known as John Cleese—shouts, “What have the Romans done for us?” After numerous suggestions of what the Romans had done, he has to conclude, in some exasperation,

“All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”.


One lone hand goes up: “Brought peace”.

So, having listened carefully to our debates so far on this group of amendments, perhaps we should film a new scene: “What has Europe done for us?” We have heard from noble Lords who have spoken and in other debates that we have had on the Bill about the benefits that have been gained through our participation in the Europe Union in education, employment rights, the economy, consumer protection, science, the environment, women’s rights, business, trade, tackling organised crime, and of course—as in Rome—peace and security. But perhaps we will leave filming the scene for another day—I can ask the Minister which character he would like to take the part of.

One aspect of the referendum campaign that always concerned me was the notion that somehow Europe was something that was done to us, almost as if it were without our consent and that somehow we had no say. Yet in so many of these issues, it has been UK negotiators, UK commissioners and UK Members of the European Parliament who have taken the lead and at all times have been fully engaged.

We have already heard some articulate and persuasive speeches on the impact that our participation has had on our citizens, and on wider Europe. Our amendment and the others in the group seek to ensure that in the negotiations that follow invoking Article 50 we do not, as my grandmother would have said, throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is all very well for those who have campaigned for our withdrawal from the EU to claim that we can maintain those protections, but we all heard the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when, speaking of the consequences of leaving the EU on Second Reading, he said:

“First among these is the consequence of the promised great repeal Bill, which will enable us to repeal or amend damaging EU regulations, which is of particular importance to our smaller businesses. I know that the party opposite”—


that is us—

“is concerned that this may adversely affect workers’ rights but less than 10% of the vast corpus of EU regulation concerns workers’ rights. It is the other 90%-plus that needs to be judiciously culled”.—[Official Report, 20/2/17; col 45.]

Those are chilling words.

I do not ascribe those motives to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State or even the Minister here, but he will know that that is exactly what many of those who advocate the hardest and fastest form of Brexit seek. When we get to the great repeal Bill process, I trust that the Government will hold to their promises and not seek to weaken existing EU legislation that applies in the UK, including in the areas I have mentioned and all those listed in our Amendment 20. If in the future the Government want to bring forward any such changes, that should be done only in the normal way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, outlined, through primary legislation allowing appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.

Meanwhile, alongside that process, the Government will be negotiating with the EU and the other 27 countries, and will need to, in the words of our amendment, “have regard to” these key issues. That is the undertaking that we seek from the Minister. I am not asking for detail at this stage, because all the amendments, like the Bill, are concerned with the process. That is why we are seeking undertakings from the Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Let us look specifically at some of the issues raised. Consumer protection is not even mentioned in the White Paper; it has not been highlighted in any way as a priority for the Government. Yet it is a key issue for many—probably most—of our citizens. It has also been clear since the referendum that trade is a concern. Then there is environmental protection—clean air, clean rivers, clean waters. There is a huge issue about air quality. We appreciate that the Government are not achieving the appropriate standards—but it is not the standards that are wrong, and the answer is not to reduce those standards, or to cease being committed to them, but to do more to meet them.

Another issue mentioned in our amendment is security and peace. On Monday we had a long and fruitful discussion on Northern Ireland, also on one of our amendments. Now we are talking specifically about UK domestic security and tackling serious and organised crime, including terrorism. In some ways, I am surprised that we even need to have a debate on this issue. Some noble Lords will recall—I see the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his place, and he will recall this as well as I do—the many hours that we spent debating this subject in your Lordships’ House, when the coalition Government made great play of the idea that they were opting out of all EU police and criminal justice measures, and would opt back in only to those that were effective and useful.

I thought that was quite a bizarre exercise, and it caused enormous concern—but in the event, quite rightly, we did not opt out of anything that applied to the UK and was in effect. All we opted out of were defunct and non-relevant measures. That is relevant to this debate because even then, the Government’s conclusion was that those measures were important to tackling serious and organised crime, to protecting our national security, and to our role in doing so, both within the EU and more widely.

My noble friend Lady Drake made some powerful comments about violence against women and girls, particularly with regard to trafficking. Those are exactly the sort of reasons why we needed those measures then, and we need them now. We need some assurances about how the Government are going to approach this matter. It has to go beyond mere co-operation.

I do not know whether the Minister has had the opportunity to speak to Rob Wainwright, who I heard on the radio a few weeks ago. He is the director of Europol and was formerly head of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. He has a lifetime’s experience in wider security issues as a civil servant and with the agencies. With his leadership, the UK has been taking a lead on these issues; we have an extraordinarily important role here. In the interview, his comments from a measured and professional position made a powerful and irrefutable case for continued co-operation and engagement, as close to the level we have now as possible. Any reduction of or drawing away from that only goes against what, two or three years ago, the Government said was essential and in British interests.

My noble friend Lady Drake covered the issue of women’s rights particularly eloquently and powerfully. Her speech explained why there are concerns about employment and social protection for women. I hope the Minister will be able to address her questions. In her remarks on transitional arrangements, particularly for trade and business, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, took a reasonable and measured approach. She wisely described a safety net so that we do not have the cliff-edge fall which noble Lords have spoken about in other debates. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that.

I know that the Minister and his ministerial colleagues do not like to refer to “transition” and that the preferred term is “implementation phase”. I do not really care what we call it, but I have an image in mind. Noble Lords of a certain age, like me, may recall the Road Runner cartoons. “Beep beep”, he goes as he runs, hurtling towards the cliff edge. Only when it is too late does he look down and find there is nothing there. At that point, he plummets hard and fast to the ground. I do not believe that the Government want us to replicate Road Runner, but if we are not going to do so they have to have a plan. Whether it is called “transitional” or an “implementation stage” that plan must be brought before Parliament. The Minister may recall that my noble friend Lord Liddle asked a similar question on Monday evening about arrangements for trade. The Minister may not want to respond on this immediately, but I ask him to reflect on it. The consequences of a cliff-edge Brexit—the Road Runner Brexit as it should now be known—are real and dangerous.

To summarise, I have made two key points. First, we need an assurance that, on the key issues in this group of amendments, there is no attempt to use Brexit in any way to water down or reduce benefits and protections for UK citizens. Secondly, that cliff-edge, Road Runner Brexit is to be avoided at all costs.

[Lord Balfe]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Member of the European Parliament and all sorts of other things that the Daily Mail gets very worked up about us not declaring. We are debating the negotiating priorities and it is becoming very clear how absolutely complex that exercise is. Whatever people were supposedly voting for, I—who was strongly for remain—interpreted it as voting to take back control. I do not agree with them, or with their definition of control, but apparently that was what was happening. The Bill takes back control because it puts it back into the Government’s hands to negotiate a sensible settlement. Taking back control does not mean repudiating every single international institution and body connected with the EU. Quite apart from the Commission, the Council, the Court of Auditors and all the rest, there are 22 different agencies listed in the amendments, all of them providing specialist functions of one kind or another.

Two of those agencies are based in the United Kingdom and I want to speak about them tonight: the European Banking Authority and the European Medicines Agency. They are different institutions in different fields, but what they have in common is that both of them are here and are EU institutions. I was involved very much—at the margin—with the European Medicines Agency, which was an achievement of John Major. It was not quite as big an achievement as getting written into the treaty that the European Parliament would always meet in Strasbourg—which also came out of that package—or that the Patent Office would move to Munich.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Balfe and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe]

Sorry, the Conservative Party—it is probably true of the Labour Party as well if you look at it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I say to the noble Lord that old habits die hard.

[Lord Balfe]

There is no need for there to be a huge gap between us. One of the points that I put forward when I was working for the Conservative Party in conjunction with the 2010 manifesto was a suggestion that instead of contracting in to the political levy, one should be enabled on the box to tick any political party to receive part of the political levy donation—any party represented in Parliament, to prevent money going to fascists and the like. That was rejected by a very senior person who is still in the Cabinet, who said to me that it would be unfair unless we had an overall settlement of the party funding issue, because it would mean impacting on one party without having an overall effect.

I have made my views clear in this House before: I do not believe in public funding of political parties. But this is not public funding. I do not queue up to get my hand in the gravy bowl to give money on the basis of the number of votes or things like that. In fact, if it were left to me, I should set a quite low limit of probably no more than £2,000 a year on donations to political parties. I happen to be suspicious: if people put more than £2,000 in, I say, what on earth are you after, then?

We could look at the issue of contracting in or out, but only in the context of a reform of the system. The noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, is absolutely right. Anyone who has had anything to with the trade union movement knows that three months is a ridiculous timespan. It is just not administratively possible, any more than it is possible to convert to not giving away plastic bags in three months: you cannot do it. I am afraid that this clause in the Bill is not motivated by anything other than a desire to take a partisan stand. One of our strengths in the House of Lords is that we can be a little more independent than in other places. I am very unhappy with this as a system, and the whole way it has been put forward is wrong. I am not against the principle of contracting in as part of an overall reform, but this is not the way to do it.

The whole political fund thing of course went wrong. As my noble friend Lord King probably knows, it was brought in because they thought that if they gave the unions a chance, all the union members would vote against political funds. If I remember rightly, the trade union movement got a chap called Bill Keyes to organise political funds, and he did brilliantly: he almost doubled the number of unions with political funds. Not a single ballot has ever been lost. This could bounce back the other way if we pursue this particular reform. It is neither fair nor democratic, and we should think very carefully before we upset the democratic apple cart.

I speak from this side of the House, from a party that is not affected. But we in the House of Lords, an unelected Chamber, to an extent have the strength to ask the Government to please go away and think again. We are not asking the Minister to give concessions tonight, because we realise that this is complex, but as it stands this is a very partisan move. I do not think that it has a place in a trade union Bill, and it is not in the manifesto. I appeal to the Government to think carefully and to at least allow a version of the noble Baroness’s amendment on to the book to give a decent amount of time so that this can be done properly.