Procedure and Privileges Committee

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, can I raise a couple of points in relation to leave of absence? I have reason to believe that in one or two cases the leave of absence provision has been exploited in an unfortunate way. I wonder therefore whether the committee and the chairman could consider two things. I understand why this is not retrospective and says “in future”, but first these proposals should be drawn to the attention of those who are currently on leave of absence and, secondly, each current case of leave of absence should be looked at to ensure it is not being exploited in an unfortunate way. If the chairman wants further information, I am very happy to provide it.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I would just like to add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has said. This House is frequently criticised because of its size. We have trotted out in newspaper leaders and articles that it is second only in size to the Chinese National People’s Congress, but if one actually looks at this House and studies it, the vast majority of work falls on the shoulders of a relatively small number of the 800 or so Members.

It is also clear, when one looks at the list of those who have taken leave of absence, that there are big question marks over some of them. Of course, an ambassador, such as our current ambassador in Italy, should, without question, be given leave of absence. We know that when he retires from his diplomatic career, he will be able to add many wise words to our counsel in this place. The same was true, of course, of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, when she had a very important job in the European Union and had leave of absence.

However, there are others, whose names I will not mention, who do not necessarily measure up to that and are not necessarily very ill for a long period. Of course illness or caring for a loved one should be taken into account and accepted as a proper reason, but there ought to be much more frequent reviews of this. My understanding is that, although it is supposed to be looked at by committee on a regular basis, that actually happens very infrequently. I am most grateful to my noble friend and delighted that it is being examined at the moment.

I would be grateful if, when my noble friend replies to this brief debate, he would tell us how many currently are on leave of absence, and how many have been for more than two years. My view is that, unless there is an overriding reason—health, a diplomatic appointment or something like that—a leave of absence should not be readily granted for more than a parliamentary Session. After all, if someone does not appear during a parliamentary Session, under the terms of the 2014 Act, known as the Steel Act, that Member forfeits membership. There is a very strong case, although I will not expand on it now, that those who do not put in a certain minimum attendance should forfeit their right because you are not able to play a constructive part in a Chamber of Parliament unless you attend on a reasonably regular basis and participate.

I hope that the review to which my noble friend referred—he said it would be coming back in the autumn—will take evidence and discuss this with bodies such as the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, which I have the honour to chair, and which has Members from all political parties and the Cross Benches and meets on a frequent basis. I hope we will have the chance to make a submission. If numbers are something that bring obloquy on the House, we ought to try to deal with that in a constructive and sensible manner. Granting indefinite leave of absence without rigorous examination, frankly, does no service to Parliament in general or to this House in particular.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

I apologise for not being able to be here on Monday for Second Reading; I was in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, chairing a conference on press freedom organised by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

However, I will make one point. At an earlier stage, I was slightly concerned that there seemed to be a sharp intake of breath in some quarters in relation to whether we ought to discuss this. That concerned me. We need to reaffirm the sovereignty of this Parliament. This is a constitutional monarchy: Parliament is responsible for considering all these kinds of Bills, and it is right that we do so. It is right that my noble friends Lord Stansgate and Lord Berkeley—I note that both are hereditary, which is interesting, but that is another story—should be able to move amendments, and that we have a debate on this.

This is especially so when the whole role, function and composition of this second Chamber is being reviewed. We ought to recognise that a number of constitutional questions are being considered at the moment, and Parliament should have oversight of any such Bills in a constitutional monarchy. It is right that we hear from my noble friends Lord Stansgate and Lord Berkeley, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and anyone else who wants to comment on this.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it is of course right, and what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said is entirely justified: Parliament has a role. But, in this particular case, we can rely upon the good judgment and discretion of the King, and we can recognise that he is a father and a brother as well as a king.

Elections Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise that I cannot be here for the whole of today. When I spoke at Second Reading, I made my reservations about the Bill quite clear. There are certain aspects that I support, such as tidying up postal voting, but all that that needs is a short Bill.

It is grotesque that we have this Bill before us while people are literally dying for democracy. The best, most seemly and most honourable thing that we can do is to delete these clauses completely from the Bill. They have no place in a Bill of this nature in a country that prides itself on being the mother of Parliaments—it is not the institution, by the way; Bright’s quotation was that the country was the mother of Parliaments, and that is what we are. It is a heritage that we should do everything we can to cherish and preserve. We are exceptionally fortunate in the democracy that we have, warts and all. While people are being mown down in Ukraine and while brave people in Russia, in St Petersburg, Moscow and other cities, are going out on to the streets to protest, knowing that if they are arrested then they might face 15 years in jail—we heard earlier in our deliberations today of that poor man or woman who was in jail in Belarus in a tiny cell with 15 others, all of whom were smokers—we have an absolute duty to cherish and preserve our democracy.

A democracy needs to have a monitoring body. I spoke for the Conservative Party from the Front Bench in the other place when the Electoral Commission came into being. As we said at Second Reading—my noble friend Lord Hayward made this point—it is certainly entirely appropriate to review its operations after two decades, but to shackle it in such a way that the Government are in a position to dictate what it does is utterly and completely wrong.

There is no point in my noble friend, for whom I have considerable affection and regard, pretending that this Government do not mean any ill. I am perfectly prepared to accept that they do not mean any ill, but what if Mr Corbyn had had charge of this? Would we on our side of the House have thought it appropriate that a Corbyn Government should have the power to dictate to an Electoral Commission? One only has to state the words to underline their absurdity. I hope my noble friend will not see that we have protracted debate on this but will say that these clauses should go, and that we do not have to debate them further.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

When I listed the people and groups who were going to oppose the Bill, I should have included the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and some of his Back-Bench colleagues. I apologise for leaving him out.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

It is a touching gesture. Anybody who considers himself or herself a parliamentarian should be opposed to this particular part of this particular Bill. I hope that message will be received by my noble friend and that he will realise that it should not be his mission to undermine, however indirectly, our parliamentary and electoral democracy because, of course, this applies to elections as well and not just to Parliament.

We are much in the debt of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for tabling these amendments. She introduced them with remarkable brevity. Let us have done with this.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, does the Government Chief Whip agree that this is going to cause tremendous problems for people working remotely, and that it underlines the unsatisfactory nature of hybrid proceedings? How are they going to find time or know how they can table amendments within that one-hour period? Will the Government Chief Whip, through the usual channels, look at every possible way to get this House back to working normally, so that everyone can participate fully—particularly during this time of ping-pong, which is a very important time for final discussion and debate on vital amendments? People who are not able to come here in person are at a real disadvantage. I hope the Government Chief Whip will use the usual channels to find a way to get us back to normal as quickly as possible.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Further to what my noble friend the Chief Whip has said, would he accept that it is essential that, from 21 June at the latest, it is expected that parliamentarians should be in Parliament? We should conduct business as normally as possible, in a self-regulating House, from that date. Could my noble friend give an assurance that that is indeed what the Government wish to do?

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Where was the cathedral, then?

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

That is in Lincoln.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Yes, we kept hearing about the cathedral. But I also kept hearing about his constituency. He was a very active constituency Member of Parliament.

Representing a community is important. I have later amendments that will come round to this on community ties being more important than arithmetic. I have seen one side of a street being in one constituency and the other in another just to satisfy the arithmetists. There have been all sorts of crazy boundaries just to get these numbers right.

My job as an MP, as those here who are ex-MPs will know, was to represent the people. We were not just lobby fodder for our parties. I used to go to meetings with pensioners and all sorts of other groups. I went to schools, received petitions and held surgeries in 25 places around Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. You build up a rapport with your constituents. Because of that rapport, sometimes, when there is a major issue, you consider whether it is important to put your constituents before the party. I have done it, and I know others have. We are able to do that. That rapport needs to be built up over a number of years. That is why I think five years is ridiculous—eight years is equally unsatisfactory—and why I am moving an amendment to 10 years. Of course populations change in different constituencies, but there are swings and roundabouts. Some parties will lose on the swings and gain on the roundabouts, and vice versa. To change so speedily just to get the arithmetic right seems wrong.

I was elected in 1979 and I went straight into a boundary review. It was changed in 1983 and I got added to it. It made my seat safer, by the way. It was not too bad, but it was a difficult period going through that. However, the Boundary Commission changed the name from South Ayrshire to Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. I suggested that it would be easier for the people I represented to keep the same name, but the commission would not accept that. It was crazy that it would not. I do not know how that helps my argument, but it is an interesting anecdote. Mind you, I came to like Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley as a name. It is very evocative.

We make special cases in the Bill for Orkney, rightly, for Shetland and the Western Isles, and now for the Isle of Wight, because they are islands. I can see that argument but it means we have some very small constituencies, so I do not know where the Minister’s point about equal weight comes in as far as those are concerned. If the Government are to take account of the fact that they are islands, why can they not take account of sparsity? There are a few Members here who used to represent parts of Scotland. There are huge constituencies in the Highlands and Islands, which used to be represented by people such as Charlie Kennedy. He did brilliantly as a Member but it was a huge job to get around the whole of his constituency. There is not enough account taken of these community differences. Very often, where it is so obvious that a river, a major road or a mountain range should be the boundary, the Boundary Commission takes no account of it because it wants to get the arithmetic right.

I will argue that case on a later amendment. However, the reason for having 10 years rather than eight is to give some stability for the Member of Parliament to get to know her or his constituency—to become acquainted with it and have the support of their constituents—and to be able to come to the House of Commons as a representative, not a party hack. That is a very important thing. It would give them much more power individually. I hope that other Members of the Committee will consider it and that, at a later stage if not today, we will perhaps have a vote on it. Meanwhile, I beg to move.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Committee: 11th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has been helpful to an extent by saying that the Queen’s printer is the Keeper of the National Archives. However, that raises the question: who is the Keeper of the National Archives?

[Lord Cormack]

His name is Mr Jeff James.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I have been rumbled. But in fact I did start off—I have a note of it, unusually for me—by saying, “These amendments deal with the third trigger”. As I pointed out to the noble Lord earlier, he and his golden trigger gave me the opportunity to bring that up.

I am about to come to the end of my speech anyway, because if I had been able to speak at Second Reading I would have finished by saying that this is yet another piece—and probably the worst piece of all—of constitutional Cleggery. This Parliament has been bedevilled by constitutional Cleggery. Fortunately, the people of this country got rid of the alternative vote by a large majority—and, fortunately, this House and this Parliament got rid of some of Mr Clegg’s other measures. Unfortunately, I fear that we will not be able to get rid of this Bill—but the country, and Parliament, will be much poorer places because we are going to pass it into law.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, not for the first time, I find myself in great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I must apologise for the fact that I too was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate, because I was in church, with Mr Clegg, at the funeral service for Jeremy Thorpe. I felt that that was a high priority, because Jeremy Thorpe was a man who had a tragic life in so many ways, but he was a very considerable parliamentarian, and I was proud to call him a friend.

I think that the Bill is misconceived, and that the amendments that we are technically at least discussing would not make it any better. Every MP is recalled at the next general election. Every MP has the duty, if he or she wishes to continue to represent the constituency, to place himself or herself, and his or her record, before the constituents. Of course, if an MP is guilty of some heinous offence, there are already provisions for expulsion. Indeed, there are already remedies within another place for a Member to be expelled. That is entirely right and proper but I am unhappy about this legislative exercise.

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I feel that this is rather the graveyard slot. Those who have delivered their speeches have departed to refresh themselves, while a few are waiting to enlighten us. Having listened to every single speech, as has my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to whom I pay a real tribute for his stamina and resilience, I might be tempted to go and have a little refreshment later myself.

Whether I am driving along the lovely lanes of Lincolnshire, as I was last week, or driving in Scotland, where I spent the whole of the war as a young boy, growing up—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Which war?

[Lord Cormack]

Not the First World War, like the noble Lord opposite; I cannot claim to rival his longevity. But whether I am driving there or in Scotland, I feel, in the words of Walter Scott, already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis:

“This is my own, my native land!”.

I am British. My family comes originally from Scotland. My elder son, known to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is settled in Scotland and I do not think will ever leave, and my eldest grandchild will have a vote on 18 September. I deeply regret that I shall not have one. But I very much hope that she, along with the other enfranchised 16 year-olds, will vote a resounding no, and I am confident that she will. She spent some time with us a fortnight ago and we were talking about this. In her school in Edinburgh, they had had a poll of all the girls, and 90% had voted no. In the boys’ school next door, she was slightly disappointed that it was only 88%. That gave me some real encouragement. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, I regretted the way in which Mr Salmond wound the Prime Minister around his finger in getting the 16 year-old vote, but I had some reassurance from what she told me. When I asked her why, she said, “Because we don’t want to cut off our opportunities”—and that, in a sense, is what it is really about.

I have talked before in this House about the difference being between remaining in a Great Britain or in a little Scotland. Of course, Scotland could be independent and go it alone, but we would be deprived—and I believe that my friends and family in Scotland would be deprived—if they did that. I profoundly hope, as I think virtually everybody who has spoken in this debate hopes, that they will not.

Only 9.1% of the population of the United Kingdom lives in Scotland. I will not repeat all the lists of Prime Ministers, economists, scientists and writers who have been referred to this afternoon. But if any part of any country has punched above its weight, Scotland, which is a nation, has punched above its weight in the United Kingdom—and I want it to continue to do so.

In 1984, I had a very interesting experience during the long Summer Recess from the other place. I spent a semester at the University of Austin in Texas. It was the time of the presidential election and a number of the cars that were driving around had a little sticker on the back that said, “Secede”. I said to my Texas host, “Some of them talk as if they mean it”. “Oh”, he said, “that’s just the heart expressing itself—the head knows that it would be total madness”.

Much as I respect those who have a different point of view, I hope that those who are contemplating voting yes in September, and still more those who have not yet made up their mind, will reflect on what a great country this is—and it is a great country because of the contribution from Scotland, which is way beyond its percentage of the population. I very much hope that there will be a resounding vote on 18 September, and that the people of Scotland will say that, yes, they want to remain part of the United Kingdom. I do not want my granddaughter to become a citizen in a foreign land, and she does not want her cousins—the children of my other son, who live in London—to be foreigners, with different passports.

Somebody talked about borders. I had the great good fortune to be the chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in the last Parliament, and I saw the difficulties created by a border there. Unless you have absolute similarity between taxes and revenues, what it does among other things is to encourage organised crime, which is a very real cross-border problem between the Republic and Northern Ireland. I rejoice at the settlement, and I am not one of those who feels deeply unhappy about Her Majesty receiving Mr McGuinness; we have made enormous progress. But the fact is that there are two countries on one island and there is a border, and that creates problems. We do not want to have that here.

We have to recognise that we are exceptionally fortunate. My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, whom I regard very much as a friend in the context of this and many other issues, pointed to the brilliance of Alex Salmond. I referred to that before in this House. But we need to have robust debate, and what he has been saying is very misleading. We have had many examples, quoted during the last three and a half hours. Salmond’s approach really is that of eating the cake and having it, to put the phrase the right way round. I have often thought, particularly over the past few weeks, of the reputed remark of the great conductor Richter to the third flute, “Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, but sometimes always, by God, never”. The people of Scotland are being misled. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, they are being asked to take a leap into the dark. It is a step into the unknown.

Of course, many have talked about changes that will come about. Like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I was against devolution but that is all over now and we have to make it work, and make it work even better than it has done—of course we have. However, it would be a constitutional and a political tragedy if we were all in this United Kingdom plunged into the uncertainty that a yes vote would create. I devoutly hope and pray that it will be a no vote and an emphatic one, and that we can more warmly embrace each other across the border. I hope that it will not become an international border, and that we can continue to recognise the enormous importance that Scotland has and the enormous contribution that it makes to this United Kingdom of ours. Long may that United Kingdom flourish.

House of Lords: Labour Peers’ Working Group Report

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Thursday 19th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, this has been quite an interesting debate. I am sorely tempted to allow myself to be provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and I will return to him in a moment. However, I begin, as almost everyone has, by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, not only on her chairmanship of the group and therefore her part-authorship of the report but on the very measured, judicious and tactful way in which she introduced it. I would like her to pass on my thanks, as others have, to Lord Grenfell, who is indeed sorely missed. His valedictory address in this House a few weeks ago was a tour de force, and a memorable occasion for all of us privileged to hear it.

I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the Bishops are here because we have in this country an established church, and everyone who lives in this country—regardless of his race, colour or creed—is entitled to the ministrations of that church. There is a case, although it is one that I would strongly refute, for disestablishment. But while we have establishment, the Bishops are here. That is why the group that produced this excellent report was entirely right—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Lord Cormack]

I shall give way in a minute. It was entirely right to put that issue on one side, because it is another issue, and there are powerful arguments on both sides.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

When the noble Lord says “this country”, can he make it clear that he means England?

[Lord Cormack]

Yes, of course I do—and next week we shall be joining forces and talking about the United Kingdom.

Although I was driven to go and get a glass of water when the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, was talking about pulling down this very edifice—or at least vacating it—we have had some interesting and thoughtful contributions. My own position is fairly well known. I should probably declare an interest as chairman of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, which my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth convenes and which we together founded more than 12 years ago. Many of your Lordships are regular members and attenders of that group.

We have demonstrated, in the trust that we have shown in each other, that there is a degree of consensus in this House on a number of things. First, there is a strong consensus in this House that there should be primacy of the House of Commons within the United Kingdom Parliament. I believe that that primacy is best safeguarded by having an unambiguous democratic mandate, which they hold. We are here for a complementary but different purpose, which is touched on in the report and has been touched on in many speeches during the past few hours. We revise and bring to our debates a degree of experience and expertise, which is a valuable add-on for the general public. I would very much regret the ending of this appointed House and its replacement by something which would be either a clone of or a rival to the other place in constitutional terms.

I put that on one side, because the report makes it plain that some of its authors would favour an elected House, and others would not. The general majority in the Labour Party, it is assumed, would not—and I am sure that the general majority in this House would not. But there are things that we can do in the mean time. It is for that reason that the report is so valuable to us all.

We need to address the subject of size. I would not agree with a membership of 450, because I doubt that it would give enough for all our committees to be effectively manned. I say that particularly because I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who would like to see our committee system extended. Given the expertise in this House, to have a foreign affairs or a foreign affairs and defence committee could only add value to the whole constitutional process in our country. I would very much like to see that. But again the report makes it plain that it is not saying 450 and that is it; the group is merely putting it forward as a suggestion. I think that the House should not be larger than the House of Commons, and a figure of around 600 would probably be right.

The report talks about retirement. This is a very difficult and sensitive subject. I would tackle it in a rather different way. I am halfway through my eighth decade, and I probably will want to step down at the age of 80—but I do not know. But in future, when new Peers come to this House, it would be sensible for the Writ of Summons to be sent for a period of 20 or 25 years, or until the age of, say, 85, or whichever comes sooner. That would be a sensible way of bringing down the age gradually, over a period. But we have so many amazing contributions from people in their 80s—we have had some in this debate—that I think that to have an arbitrary age limit would not be the right way for us to go. I think that that would carry most colleagues.

I believe that those who are here as hereditary Peers should stay, but the by-election system, particularly when there are more candidates than electors for a particular party, as sometimes happens, does not exactly enhance the reputation of the House of Lords. I am very concerned about the reputation of the House of Lords; it is something that means a very great deal to me.

What has struck me most in the few years that I have been here is how we have been able to look at issues truly on their merits. I was told when I came here that in the House of Lords, unlike in the House of Commons, you have to win the argument. There is a degree of whipping, but many of us take it with a degree of discretion, and it is very good that the Government of the day are defeated from time to time. That is what we are here for. If the Government of the day were never defeated on the Floor of the House of Lords, there would be no point in having this House at all. However, it is right that, at the end of the day, we should give way to the elected Chamber.

I am also struck by the lack of party-political acerbity in this House, symbolised by our Long Table, where we sit and eat together regardless of our political, religious or any other affiliations. That brings us together as people and enables us to get to know each other as individuals, as is the case with the group which meets on a regular basis to campaign for an effective second Chamber, which is what we should all seek to do.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Friday 31st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Yes, former Leader of the House.

This Bill has been criticised by people like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, with a distinguished record in the Civil Service, who has described it as reckless, and by people like my noble friend Lord Giddens, a distinguished scholar, who has warned of possible protracted legal challenges. These are the kind of things that the promoter of the Bill should take account of and answer in debate. He should deal with them and he has dealt with none of them. Not one of them has been dealt with. He is totally inadequate in promoting this Bill.

My noble friend Lord Triesman gave a brilliant reply. It was one of those speeches which you wish you had made yourself, because it was so eloquent. It was a brilliant analysis—I will get the money later.

[Lord Cormack]

The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, made it quite plain that he was speaking for himself.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

He was not speaking for me—I wish he had been, if you see what I mean—but I agree with everything he said. Have I got that right? Yes. As he pointed out, we are not talking just about election to a constituency in a general election, when, of course, a few votes here or there can decide it, but it can change in five years’ time, and things change again and again. We are talking about an irrevocable decision, and if that irrevocable decision is made on a low turnout by just a few people or if it is made by the people of Gibraltar, because the vote is so close, it would really be an outrage.

I believe that this amendment is the right one. However, it has been pointed out to me that it is technically deficient; it is not drafted in the right way. There are other amendments later that would do the same thing, which we can consider when we get to them. Therefore, for that reason and for that reason alone, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Presumably they thought that there was a greater intellect here to be able to examine it in more detail, with such people as the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong and Lord Kerr, and a whole range of people like that. I am sure that they will welcome all the suggestions from this House, as well as the wisdom that we are about to receive.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I am grateful, but the noble Lord knows only too well that the other place had neither the stamina to talk the Bill out nor the courage to go into the Lobbies in any numbers from either his party or the Liberal Democrats. All the Divisions had huge majorities, where the negative vote was derisory. He knows full well that the question asked by my noble friend Lord Forsyth comes to the heart of the matter. We are being used.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Maybe the noble Lord does not realise that those Divisions in the House of Commons were artificially constructed. The Conservatives put in the Tellers on both sides; they manufactured those Divisions deliberately.

[Lord Cormack]

In other words, it was unanimous in the other House.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Everyone knows that this is a Tory party Bill masquerading as a Private Member’s Bill. Today it is also a disgrace that we are discussing it because the coalition government Chief Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has used her position, I think improperly, to put it ahead of all other Private Members’ Bills. There are 23 Private Members’ Bills waiting to be discussed—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Amendment 42A puts in the word “consultative”. This is the point I made earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said that it is implicit in the Bill; this would make it explicit. Why do I want to do that? All referenda that we have had in Britain have been, by nature, consultative, and Parliament has chosen to comply with the will of the people as expressed through referenda. In other countries, such as Italy, France and Turkey, legislative assemblies have no choice but to accept them as binding referenda. Because it happens in other countries, some people have come round to the view that referenda can be binding. There is a fairly widespread—although incorrect—feeling that they are binding. If referenda are consultative by constitutional design, Parliament will surely, as always, go along with the choice of the majority in any future referendum. However, I want to guard against the possibility of a disputed result, numerous varieties of which may call for a second referendum.

For example, there might be a low turnout or perhaps, as with the AV referendum, there might some allegations of dirty tactics. Equally there might be an incredibly close result. As my noble friend Lord Anderson said, it was not close in 1975, it was a very clear result, but a referendum might be incredibly close, by one or two percentage points. In all those scenarios, a rerun may be the only way to definitely resolve the question. However, a rerun may also frustrate and alienate many voters who have assumed that referenda are binding. In order to avoid any feelings of betrayal or anger, we must make clear that it is a consultative referendum and that Parliament is sovereign at the end of the day and could, if it wished, ignore or repeal a referendum, should circumstances demand it.

The 1979 referendum was mentioned earlier. It would have been open to the Government, if they had been a Labour Government after 1979, to accept the result of the referendum, notwithstanding the 40% rule. However, because they were a Conservative Government, they decided to abandon devolution.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, the noble Lord will acknowledge that it was an amendment tabled by a Labour Member of Parliament, George Cunningham, that led to the threshold.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Indeed. Perhaps the noble Lord was out having his tea earlier when I said precisely that in a previous speech.

The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has said that trust in politics and politicians is very low. Therefore, we must not allow the fact that it is a consultative referendum to remain unclear; otherwise, what he said earlier will apply a fortiori—we will be deceiving the people. The people deserve not only a say, which is their democratic right—I hope that the people’s choice organisation is listening to me—but full disclosure. I hope that we will therefore clarify the situation and put in the word “consultative”.

We have already had two amendments agreed. This would clarify things. It is a very simple thing, putting in just one word. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that he should not feel inhibited by the procession of Tory Whips I have seen whispering in his ear. He should have the courage to say, for once, “That is a good amendment even though it is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, so I will accept it”. I hope he will.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, the Leader of the House has moved that the debate on the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Harrison should last for two hours. On the Order Paper, after that, there are, astonishingly, to be two Statements by two separate Ministers on the same subject. This entirely unprecedented action, which is also happening in the House of Commons, has, I understand, had to have the approval of the Speaker of the House of Commons, because it is unique. It has never happened before and the Speaker had to agree to it. You, Lord Speaker, do not have the power in this self-regulating House to agree to such an arrangement, an entirely unprecedented arrangement. The only power lies with us in the House to agree to that. I do not remember, recall or recognise that we have agreed to that. Does the Leader of the House intend to seek the approval of the House for such an unusual and unprecedented arrangement?

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, when he replies to that, can my noble friend the Leader of the House tell us whether the Statements are going to be antiphonal or sequential, and whether the Ministers will be questioned after each section of the Statement or at the end? Can he also tell us in what precise capacity the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is to address the House? Is he speaking as the leader of a political party in this House, or is he speaking on behalf of the Government? If he is speaking on behalf of the Government and my noble friend is speaking on behalf of the Government, what conclusions can we draw from that extraordinary state of affairs?