Procedure of the House

Debate between Lord Barnett and Lord Brabazon of Tara

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brabazon of Tara]

I welcome parts of this report, particularly paragraph 6, which gives us extra time for QSDs, but I am not so keen on this idea of a Back-Bench business committee. I know that it was proposed in the Goodlad report, but not everything in the Goodlad report was gospel. I well remember bringing the first half dozen proposals from the Goodlad report to the Floor of the House when I occupied the position of Chairman of Committees; three of them were voted straight out. So I am not certain one should use that as an argument for the goodness of this suggestion.

I make the point, as have other noble Lords, that balloted debates are the only chance that some noble Lords have of getting their subjects debated. Will this new committee have to give reasons for its decisions? Would it deliberate in public? How does it intend to fulfil its remit, in paragraph 10, to “add transparency and accountability”? I assume that the committee would be set up in much the same way as are most of the other committees in this House. Whether it is elected or appointed, it would still have party balance. Like, I am sure, all committees in this House with party balance, it would tend to rotate the debate subjects around the various parties. I am not quite sure why it would operate in a different way from the existing party debate days, which will continue.

I welcome the proposals in the Leader’s section—option 2 in the report. I welcome the idea of not rolling over debates from one to another, so that you hopefully get a slightly lower number of two-and-a-half-hour balloted debates on the Order Paper at any one time. I agree that there should be an element of cross-party support for the particular subject. I make one further suggestion, which is that the present two and a half hours for each balloted debate—five hours in total—should not rigidly be divided at two and a half hours each. If we were to have a situation where there were more speakers in one debate than in the other, the list might have to close slightly earlier but one debate might get, say, three hours and the other only two. I wonder if the Procedure Committee might look at that proposal.

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, my naive noble friend Lord Peston and the Leader of the House may inadvertently have been misleading us in talking about this Back-Bench committee. Like the noble Baroness, I have my doubts about it, but let us be clear that we are talking about experiment here, not an established Select Committee. If anybody reads this report, they will see that we are talking about a temporary committee. I support this strongly, to see how it will work. I am by no means certain. I am as uncertain as I am about economic forecasts; as the Office for Budget Responsibility says, they are usually uncertain.

I am pleased to hear how much the Leader of the House wishes to see more time available for Back-Benchers to hold the Government to account. We still do not know when we are ceasing to sit for Prorogation, or why we had an extra week off for Easter. We could have had a lot of Back-Bench time in that week. We could have more next week. Perhaps the Leader of the House, if he eventually gets up again, might tell us why we were prevented from having some time available then, if he so wishes to hold the Government to account.

If we are talking about the establishment and holding it to account, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is probably more a member of the old establishment than anybody else in your Lordships’ House. I make it clear that when I was part of that establishment, during my five years as Chief Secretary, I very much welcomed the views of the noble Lord, which were always good to hear even if I did not agree with them. The noble Lord was well worth listening to. Perhaps I should also make it clear, as others have done, that I certainly have no wish to be a member of this special committee, although I do not rule out making representations to it—that is for sure.

I hope that the House will agree to set this committee up on a temporary basis to see how it works. That is all that we are being asked to do. I hope that the House will agree even to take it on the nod. Let us have this settled once and for all. That is all that we are asking.

House of Lords: Peers’ Car Park

Debate between Lord Barnett and Lord Brabazon of Tara

Thursday 15th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, the difficulty with the car park arrangements are well known to Members of your Lordships’ House. I have spoken about them before and have no need to dwell on them, but the House will know that we have never had an opportunity either to debate or to decide on these car park arrangements.

When I raised the issue with the Chairman of Committees, I was told that it was a matter of security. Security? We have had a Black Rod since 1361 and it is very insulting to all of them to be told that they have left us in danger of possible terrorist attacks. The plain fact is that a terrorist would have to be an idiot not to know about the arrangements for coming in and leaving this House. To give “security” as a simple answer is simply not good enough. Black Rod himself has now slightly amended the rules. We did not know about that and we have still not had an opportunity to discuss the issue at any stage. I gather that at long last these new arrangements were put in place yesterday. They are a slight improvement but it still means that disabled Members of your Lordships’ House will be put in huge difficulty.

I said that I would not speak for long and I do not intend to, but the plain fact is that it was done without this House having an opportunity to debate the issue at all. That is why I tabled the Motion on the Order Paper. Members should decide for themselves what they want to do. In those circumstances, I beg to move.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

My Lords, following the comments that we have just heard, it might be helpful if I were to say a few words. Following his remarks on 16 February, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, laying out all the details of the decision-making process on the trial in the Peers’ car park and the ways in which this had been communicated to the House. I also pointed out that the Floor of the House is not the appropriate place to discuss matters of security and I therefore regret that this matter has been raised again on the Floor of the House, especially at such short notice.

However, I would like to take a few moments to explain to the House why the Administration and Works Committee has reached the conclusions that it has on this matter. The committee first considered the new arrangements for the Peers’ car park on 29 November 2011 and concluded that they were necessary on the grounds of security. Following that meeting, I made a Written Statement to the House on 8 December, and before the Christmas Recess a display was erected in the Peers’ cloakroom with details about the new arrangements, along with a diagram. Following concerns from Members about the new arrangements in the new year, I made a brief Oral Statement on 16 January, announcing that I had asked Black Rod to produce an interim report on the trial and that the committee would consider this again at its meeting on 7 February. At that meeting, the committee unanimously agreed that there were compelling security reasons for the new arrangements to remain in place.

I understand, of course, that some Members have found the new arrangements problematic, but I am grateful to those who have put forward constructive suggestions for improvements. The committee recognised that there were some practical difficulties with the new arrangements and therefore agreed that further permanent changes should be made to improve the Peers’ car park in the future. These changes will include: creating a specially designated lay-by for taxis, which will allow taxis to drop off and pick up passengers without impeding pedestrian access and without causing congestion; locating the lay-by directly opposite the Peers’ entrance to shorten the distance between the taxi drop-off point and the Peers’ entrance; altering the exit arrangements for leaving the Peers’ car park to speed up exit times; rearranging the street furniture to remove the short section of contraflow traffic; and providing a clearly delineated walkway for pedestrians. It is expected that these changes will be completed by the end of the Summer Recess. I hope that they will address the points which noble Lords have raised.

Following the committee’s agreement to those changes on 7 February, I made a Written Statement on 9 February outlining our conclusions, not yesterday as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said. A diagram of the proposed changes is now on display in the Peers’ cloakroom. I would like to point out that the Administration and Works Committee contains representatives of all the major parties and the Cross-Bench Peers, including the Whips and the Convenor, and is the route by which Members of the House are consulted about such matters. My Statement made it clear that both Black Rod and members of the committee were willing to discuss this matter further with other Members in person. I therefore maintain that the committee has conducted its business in a completely open and transparent manner. Furthermore, I believe that the members of the committee have done as much as possible to ensure that Members have been kept informed of the changes to the Peers’ car park, that Members’ feedback has been acted on and that future changes have been communicated to the House.

The changes to the Peers’ car park have been considered in great detail and agreed for good reasons. The parking of cars in the Peers’ car park without a prior vehicle security search has been identified clearly in successive reviews of the security of the parliamentary estate as a significant vulnerability to the Palace of Westminster and to those who work and visit within. The Joint Committee on Security has understood and accepted this.

While there is nothing in our rules to prevent security matters being debated, it is a long-standing convention that security is not discussed in the Chamber, and it is common sense that it would clearly be unhelpful if any discussion of security, which might well expose weaknesses in the House’s security arrangements, was conducted in public. While there can, of course, be a discussion about the detail of the measures that are in place to lessen the vulnerability, which they clearly do, as was affirmed by the Joint Committee on Security earlier this week, the parliamentary security director advises strongly that this discussion should not occur on the Floor of the House. He has advised that,

“such public disclosure of a security issue at Parliament would thereafter need to be included in security risk assessments about the safety of the front of the Palace and arguably would lessen the flexibility for change, and could lead to a requirement for more stringent measures”.

For these reasons, I strongly discourage debate on these matters of security, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will feel able to withdraw his Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Committees]

I think that we have already dealt with that problem about the desirability. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, it really is not a good idea to talk about detailed security matters.

I take the point that the noble Baroness made about whether I should have made an Oral Statement on 9 February. Maybe I should have done, but I did give these details in the Written Statement. Although I know that we have only produced the new plan within the last day or two, the plan only reflects the details that I announced on 9 February. I really think that they will make an improvement to the situation. The taxi drop-off and collection lay-by will be much closer to the front door of your Lordships’ House. In fact, I am told that the distance from the new drop-off point will be almost exactly the same distance as going down one of the Division Lobbies. I noticed yesterday that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, voted several times in the Division Lobbies; the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has no doubt done so as well. It has been no worse than that.

I take up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, made. He is absolutely right, as I hinted in my opening remarks, that we have a responsibility to protect not only ourselves but everybody else working on and visiting the parliamentary estate. The remarks made by Members about the new arrangements have not gone unnoticed by staff of the House, who are understandably concerned about this matter. In fact, I understand that when the Lord Speaker attended an all-staff meeting on 13 January, two days after this issue was first raised on the Floor of the House, the very first question she was asked was whether, in light of those comments, the safety of the staff of the House was a priority. I think that from today’s debate we can confirm to the staff that it is indeed a priority. I really do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will feel able to withdraw his Motion.

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, if there is one thing that this whole debate has told us, it is the ridiculous way in which this whole thing has been handled. Not a single word has been said in reply to the detailed comments made by my noble friend Lord Peston; we are just told that we should not discuss it, as the right reverend Prelate and others have said. However, nobody has answered in detail the points made by my noble friend Lord Peston. Of course we can discuss it. The idea that terrorists are idiots and think that you can get in only by taxi is so absurd that it does not bear contemplation for a moment. On 7 February, when the committee met and reviewed this as I had previously asked, the Chairman of Committees eventually told me that he had answered the point. How did he do it? It had been done in a Written Statement, deliberately to prevent us discussing it. That is why this House has never had an opportunity to debate this issue. We are told now, once again, briefly, that we should not discuss security. Yet nobody has said why we should not discuss security.