House of Lords Reform

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, recently, the invariably interesting if not controversial noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, moved an amendment on fisheries regulations. I supported the amendment in Committee and was about to sign up on Report, but then stopped to reflect that my name in support was irrelevant. House approval for his amendment was likely to be decided on a three-line Conservative Whip. Conservatives can win almost any amendment they choose—they have the numbers. Indeed, I suspect that the Conservative leaders, having loaded the House with their Peers, while being reduced to a rump in the Commons, are now having to manage their majorities to avoid a constitutional backlash. With a growing number of former Conservative MPs who have sought and pleaded for peerages, while starving Labour of peerages—a third of our Members are over 80, with many too frail to attend, while only one in nearly six Conservatives is over 80—the Conservatives have created a disproportionate House of 829. Even with the exclusion of every hereditary, 740 would remain. The truth is that they have completely undermined the reforms proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Fowler. With just over 120 Labour Peers regularly in our Lobbies, we simply do not stand a chance.

House votes are no longer credible as, more often than not, they are managed by a Conservative Front Bench who have honourably forsaken earnings in favour of public service. That does not mean that our debates lack value: on the contrary, our debates are the envy of a worldwide audience; it is our votes that now lack all credibility. What worries me is wider obstruction over reform. It is with that in mind that I offer an option—an interim arrangement on which we could build. Why not move to a second Chamber with a two-tier membership? It would feature Peers with votes and Peers without votes. All would be entitled to attend and speak. Political-party Peers reflecting the general election percentage turnout results would be the voting Peers, alongside the Cross-Benchers, comprising 20% to 25% of a total House of 500. That is a departure from the 600 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, but it would then be staged. Peers would be remunerated under a two-tier allowance regime. Under such arrangements, voting and non-voting Peers could be nominated pending longer-term reform. These are the reforms proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, revisited and tweaked, with perhaps even a salaried voting membership.

What are the problems? I am told that there are constitutional difficulties over a two-tier membership, but Parliament can decide that. I understand that there are no special procedures required for changing the UK constitution. There is no clear concept of higher law. One advantage of a two-tier membership is that, with a residual managed decline to a non-voting House, we could have movement between voting and non-voting Members. We could also, in the Fowler House of 600, maintain a declining membership of 100 non-voting Peers available for ministerial appointments. That would see us through a difficult period of reform to an ultimate, indirectly elected House. I hesitate suggesting arrangements for designating the voting Peers; I leave that to the usual channels. When designing the supplementary vote in the 1990s, I kept it simple, leaving it open for being built on in future. It worked well for 20 years, until Johnson abolished it for perceived political advantage. The irony is that, if we had maintained the original idea and extended it to general elections, the Conservatives would not have lost so many seats at the previous election. It was designed to avoid violent swings—but, more importantly, it would have avoided exposing the gross anomaly now of a totally disproportionate House of Lords.

House of Lords: Behaviour and Courtesy

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask the Leader of the House what plans she has to promote awareness among members of the rules and conventions relating to behaviour and courtesy in the Chamber.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the first Oral Question is from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating remotely.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Chief Whip and I, with the Front Bench and the usual channels, are committed to promoting the rules and conventions of the House on an ongoing basis. This includes advising on individual items of business and general communications about points of procedure. The Chief Whip, with the usual channels, recently wrote to all Members reminding us of the normal courtesies of the House and expected standards of behaviour. This is to support noble Lords in understanding the rules and conventions. In a self-regulating Chamber, it is crucial that we all maintain high-quality debate, respect for the conventions and respect for each other.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, having participated remotely in proceedings over three years, I have been able to observe from afar the conduct of Members. Do Members not realise how appalling the House appears to a worldwide audience when Peers, who include some of the brightest people in the land, openly argue, protest, shout across the Chamber and demand who should be called, in an attempt to control contributions? We cannot go on like this; it looks awful. Why not establish a committee of the House to consider whether we would be better served by giving the Speaker greater powers to intervene? The current arrangements demean our reputation. We have a problem and it needs sorting.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, on the first part of the noble Lord’s question, I am impressed if today we have a worldwide audience. I hope that is the case. Nothing is more undignified and disrespectful to colleagues than when others shout so that those with the loudest voices get heard. I have to say, I do not think it happens that often. I am not really encouraged to set up a new committee. The House itself makes its views known and my noble friend Lord Kennedy, the Chief Whip, has been quite encouraging—let us say—of Members to abide by the conventions and behaviours of the House. I know that for some Members it does seem strange from time to time, but I urge all Members that if we all behave with dignity and respect for others, this should not be a problem.

Ukraine Update

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, instead of threatening alienation, conflict and isolation, can we not seek, even now, to negotiate the agreed-timeframe non-NATO Ukraine that I have been calling for in this House in recent months, in return for buffer state protectorate status under Ukraine for Donetsk and Luhansk? With China wooing Russia and prolonged tension in Europe, undermining economic development and cybersecurity, we do not need turmoil in these volatile times. We are humiliating Russia. German humiliation led to Versailles and war.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord’s comments. The action President Putin has taken represents a further attack on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It signals an end to the Minsk process and is a violation of the UN charter. Unfortunately, it demonstrates Russia’s decision to choose a path of confrontation over dialogue. We remain willing to talk, but it must de-escalate its aggression towards Ukraine.

Ukraine

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord. Certainly, we are absolutely committed to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to providing it with a full range of support.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, instead of dwelling on Russian aggression, why do Ministers not read the recently released declassified material in the National Security Archive at George Washington University? It reveals the security assurances given to the Soviets against NATO expansion in the names of Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major and Wörner. The Russians, ever conscious of the 20 million lost in the last war, and with external threat in mind, nevertheless believed the undertakings and compromised. Talk now of the abrogation is causing today’s crisis. Before issuing irresponsible threats, should everyone not read the archive material, which is available in our Library?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord. NATO does not pose an aggressive threat to Russia.

Business and Planning Bill

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 6th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I cautiously welcome much of what is in the Bill, which is a valid attempt to restore the economy in the most adverse of conditions. However, what I have to say today, which is genuinely supportive, should not be taken as support for the Government’s wider approach to handling the pandemic, which has been a disaster, with delayed decisions undoubtedly costing thousands of lives—although that is an argument for another day.

The Bill has been broadly welcomed in the Lake District, an area on which I will concentrate my remarks. A guest house owner in Keswick in the front line put it this way on the bounce-back loan scheme amendments:

“We have taken advantage of this and it was a relatively painless exercise. We also took the £10,000 grant, the SEISS grant, and a short mortgage holiday.”


On the exemption for public service vehicles, the owner stated:

“This helps us by ensuring availability of goods and services.”


They then went on to welcome the pavement licencing and outdoor seating arrangements. Generally, there has been a good welcome for this in the Lake District. Another Keswick businessman, local councillor Tony Lywood, put it this way:

“We are all over it. Many businesses in the town are now near the edge of bankruptcy, and this bill is very timely and welcome.”


However, concern was expressed by one Keswick hotelier, who referred to guidance notes being provided by UKHospitality. Its advice is therefore important. While I need to express a little concern about its absence of comment on the issue of voids and vending, and perhaps a little vagueness on cleaning product usage, conversely, I have to recognise that it does not have the power to instruct or enforce. I know that we cannot define all these matters in the law, but the work of government should go hand in hand with the recommendations of the trade associations, where the Government seek compliance with safety requirements in the public interest. It may well be that the Government should consider enshrining in the law some aspects of UKHospitality’s excellent guidance notes, if only to ensure a greater level of compliance, particularly in areas where slack trade practices could dilute government efforts in dealing with the pandemic.

UKHospitality should be asked for its legislative recommendations; then we can pursue them in Committee. For example, its document states that

“failing to put in place … measures to manage the risk of COVID-19, could constitute a breach of health and safety law.”

Why not remove the element of doubt enshrined in “could”? I am sure there are probably many areas in the hospitality code which, if enshrined in law, could make all the difference.

Finally, I am concerned that a second phase of the virus could completely undermine the sacrifices already made by UK business. The law should reflect such concerns. That is all I need to say at this stage.

Global Britain

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend. He is absolutely right that the merger will take place in September. The work to implement it is being led by a team in the Cabinet Office, working closely with teams from the FCO and DfID. That work is being overseen by the Cabinet Secretary, who reports to the Prime Minister, so it can go on at this time. We believe that it will enhance our ability to play a leading role in the global world.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

As part of the shadow ministerial team in the 1990s behind the policy of ODA/Foreign Office separation, and having heard the questions up to now, I say to the Minister, in summary, that this decision will kill DfID morale; it will distort DfID’s current poverty alleviation priorities; it will leak resources from development into other Foreign Office activities; and it will downgrade the roles played and positions held by DfID officials. It was precisely to deal with those problems that Labour set up DfID under Clare Short as a separate department in the 1990s. Is this not the third time that the Conservatives have wound up the department? They did so in 1970 under Ted Heath, in 1979 under Thatcher and now in 2020 under Johnson. It is madness, and it is the work of development aid bigots.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Obviously, I fully respect the work that the noble Lord has done and he is, as ever, entitled to his views. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him and certainly do not accept being called a development bigot. As I have said, we believe that this is the right move at the right time. We want to take the best of the departments, both of which are a credit to our Civil Service, and bring them together to enhance the work that they do. We believe that this will be a positive, strong move. We will be involving staff in this decision and making sure that this department is at the vanguard of our international policy efforts.

Special Adviser Appointments

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the 2010 Act, to which I referred, says that all appointments of special advisers must be approved by the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister may terminate the contract by withdrawing his consent at any time. That is also made clear in the Ministerial Code.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, paragraph 11 of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers states:

“Any special adviser found to be disseminating inappropriate material will be subject to a disciplinary process”.


Can I ask the Minister about the process? What is the process that should have been applied, or that should be applied in these cases more generally?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the terms of employment for any special adviser, as I have said, are set in their model contract. They are bound by the Code of Conduct. The process will depend on the terms of that contract. Dominic Cummings is ultimately accountable to the Prime Minister for his conduct, as is the case for all special advisers.

Hong Kong Protests

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. We have been clear all along that we condemn utterly any violence at all. It is essential that any protests that occur are conducted peacefully and within the law, and that the response of the authorities is proportionate.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Does the Minister not accept that any foreign interference will only make matters worse?

[Earl Howe]

There is a distinct risk of that, yes, my Lords.

European Council

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I did not say that the UK was taking the lead; I merely said that the noble Lord was right that there was no discussion of the matter at the Council. I wanted to point out, however, that we were involved and engaged and I highlighted the visit to Tehran as an example of that. I did not mean to mislead the noble Baroness or to say that we were in the lead, but we are playing an important part. We continue to talk to our partners, including France and Germany, about how to help to de-escalate this situation, which is in the best interests of not only the region but the world.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

On the matter just raised, may we have an assurance that we will not buckle under pressure from the United States of America?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The Prime Minister has been very clear on this point. We have continued to support the nuclear deal, for instance, even though the United States have not, and we will continue to work with our European partners because we believe that this has helped stability. We will continue to talk to Iran on that basis.

Business of the House

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

On these things, people have to stand up and be counted. I reflect that having made my speech last week against a strong Whip from my party saying that we should obey Standing Orders, I did not regret it and I asked myself whether I should intervene in this debate—I have intervened only on the Standing Order and the procedural point—and do it again. I felt that I must because not only is the pace so extraordinary but it is so odd that 227 Members of the House of Lords— your Lordships’ House, the revising Chamber—voted to close off, after a few minutes, discussion of whether your Lordships should allow yourselves more than one day to discuss a Bill of such importance and such significance. I think that was a sad reflection on our love of our procedures which I confess are part of our freedom. Our freedoms were won by Parliament. They are held by Parliament and we in this place have a part in that, irrespective of where we stand on the debates on Europe. One thing I agree with my noble friend Lady Evans on is that we have heard a lot, but surely on this business of how we conduct ourselves we can rise above the debates that we are having later and consider whether this House wishes to embark down this road. I submit that when I suggested to my noble friend on the Front Bench last week that the Government should listen and adhere to Standing Orders, they did listen. They adjourned the House and we had the debate the next day. I now submit to the noble Baroness that she should show the same grace and that she should accept the proposition that we hear one stage today and have time to reflect on the later stages of the Bill on another day. That is not an unreasonable provision. I put that submission in conclusion to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

This is an abuse of our procedures. Can it stop?

[Lord True]

I would have stopped 30 seconds later if the noble Lord had not risen. He calls it an abuse of Parliament. I call it the right of any Member of Parliament to put the case for proper procedures, freedom and accountability, and accountability lies there just as it must lie here.