Affordable Housing

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Yes, indeed. We announced that we would abolish the cap on the housing revenue account, to enable local authorities to build up to £4 billion- worth of new homes and introduce a new generation of council housing.

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

Since the Minister has conceded the need for government intervention against excessive free market distortion effects, particularly from overseas buyers, will the Government now take more action to ensure that empty properties are dealt with energetically and not left unoccupied, as are so many owned by overseas buyers, who pay just over £1,000 or £2,000 on council tax?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Again, it is sad that any property is left empty for a substantial length of time, given the number of people in housing need. As the noble Lord will know, a premium rate of council tax is paid on properties left empty for more than a certain time. In certain parts of the country, additional council tax is levied on owners of second homes. I will, however, reflect on his question to see whether there is any further action we can take to make sure that houses are occupied by people who need them.

Brexit: Stability of the Union

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and I thank him for his wise words. Reflecting on these matters, as one often does, after 27 years in the House of Commons and seven years in the wilderness—as they call it nowadays—and then coming into your Lordships’ House in 2004, I have become increasingly depressed by the deterioration of the quality of British politics and British party politics in making decisions to help the citizens of this country. It started, sadly, with Margaret Thatcher, although at least she supported the single market in the European negotiations, even if it was partly because she thought it an important business matter—fair enough—and did not necessarily support its other aspects. More recently, I have witnessed the unbelievable deterioration of politics, with the catastrophe of the Brexit result and the Government’s handling of it.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for introducing this debate today and making such excellent and wise suggestions about future possibilities of the federal union type. I look forward to seeing his Bill flourish.

This matter is so severe now in this country because we cannot get agreement between the parties on any substantial matter—we cannot really get agreement on anything. Now, at long last, Theresa May is beginning the exercise of asking to discuss these matters with the other parties—which she should have done ages ago—because we have reached a huge impasse and have no solution. That is the background.

For many years now, there has been no agreement on anything in British politics, including party funding and changing the voting system from the crude, primitive first past the post system to a PR system, as most countries in Europe have. I live in France as well, which is an exception. There, they have the two-round system, which mitigates the tyranny of the first past the post result.

I welcome the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Young, on the Front Bench today to give us the wisdom of his answers and to make constructive suggestions for the future. The situation is very grim indeed.

If the Whips had allowed me to speak for 15 minutes today, I would have spent five minutes on what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, and five minutes on what my noble friend Lord Warner said. I thank them for their speeches. However, in the four minutes left to me, I will conclude with some comments on their observations.

We have to start now to reach agreement in this country at long last. Can Mrs May do it? I was astonished—and said so at the time; I am not being wise after the event—when, immediately after the referendum result, she said, “Brexit means Brexit”. Given her authority, psychologically, as a new Prime Minister, and one without a general election result but rather elected by her own party’s members, she could have explained that it was a complicated matter. She could have suggested going back to discuss how we handle this with all the parliamentary organs and parties, and with everybody in the country. She could have said that we needed a full and proper analysis of the Brexit result. It was, after all, an advisory referendum. Even though Cameron promised that he would insist on carrying it through, that did not apply to the subsequent Prime Minister.

Then, following the election on 8 June, the Prime Minister lost the mandate to carry on with the Brexit negotiations but said that she would carry on in a totally artificial and provocative combination with the DUP, which is, I am sad to say, one of the least popular parties in the House of Commons. That party is based on Protestant extremism and the denial of women’s rights, for God’s sake; it is amazing that Mrs May even considered linking up with it just to provide an artificial majority. In a country with a written constitution, that would surely have been declared inadmissible by the augurs of the state who decide on constitutional propriety. But we do not have that. Instead, we have party, constitutional and parliamentary anarchy.

We must break through that anarchy, and we now have the opportunity to do so, in resisting Brexit and probably having a second referendum if Parliament itself cannot decide finally. Perhaps the public would accept that, and we would then have a chance to restore the quality, value and valour of the British political system in England, the main country, and in the devolved parts. If not, this anarchy and chaos will continue, and we will continue in a downward spiral into I know not what. I hope that will not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, if that was the speech of a novice, we look forward to hearing from the noble Lord when he finds his length. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this timely and exceptionally well-informed debate. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who chose and introduced it, this time without the colourful reference to his maiden aunts.

The noble Lord has listened to more hours of debate in Parliament on the union—many of them I expect involuntarily—than any of us. He has unrivalled insight into the constitutional and legislative implications of what has happened in the past and what is happening now. I am therefore pleased that at this time of constitutional change, with our eyes turned outwards to the EU, he has provided us with the opportunity to look inwards—as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, has just told us—to the far older, far stronger bonds between our nations, which have enabled us to overcome past challenges, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, told us. This is an opportunity to see how those bonds might be strengthened in the future. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose managed to put the relationships in a historical context by drawing on recollections of his ancestors.

I will say straight away that the Government take the warnings from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and others who have spoken in this debate extremely seriously. I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Hain, and others have done with the Constitution Reform Group to bring stability to the union, an objective which we all share. The Minister for the Constitution looks forward to meeting that group soon, and I will return to the Bill in a moment.

Speaking on “The Andrew Marr Show” earlier this month, the Prime Minister said that, if the vote was lost on Tuesday, we would be in uncharted waters, and that of course has consequences for the union. In our debate, we have had some professional political cartographers steering us away from the jagged rocks below the cliff edge to which some siren Brexiteers entice us, and indicating where calmer waters and more favourable winds may prevail. No deal would be bad for all of us but it would create particular political tensions in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as we have heard today from my noble friends Lord McInnes and Lord Dunlop, and from the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow, Lord Hannay and Lord Hay, who spoke about the backstop. I think we were all moved by the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about Wales and the late Steffan Lewis, to whom he paid tribute.

It is worth rewinding briefly to see how we got here. Of course, the centrifugal forces within the UK predate the Brexit referendum, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said in his opening remarks. This was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres. We saw the growth in political support for Scottish independence when the SNP unexpectedly won overall control at Holyrood, and in Northern Ireland we have seen growing support for the party that believes in a united Ireland. The Brexit referendum crystallised and added momentum to these forces.

During our debate, there has been criticism of the decision to hold referendums, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, reminded us of how we got here. I am personally cautious about referendums as they can cause tension with our parliamentary democracy, but there are some issues which it cannot satisfactorily resolve. For example, the SNP, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, was never going to win a majority in Westminster to deliver Scottish independence, yet there was clearly significant support for it in Scotland. The referendum was the right way to resolve that issue. Likewise, UKIP was never going to win a Westminster election, but in 2014 it topped the poll in the EU elections on an unequivocal manifesto of withdrawal. Again, the referendum was the right way to resolve this question and lance the boil.

Likewise, there is provision for a referendum in Northern Ireland should the conditions in the Belfast agreement ever be fulfilled, a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said: that in Northern Ireland, more important than Brexit is the wish of the population to see the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive. They see that as their top priority.

In passing, I understand all the arguments against a second referendum, which is not government policy, but I do not accept that our democratic tradition is so fragile that it could not withstand one, were it to be held.

The criticism that can be made of the Brexit referendum is not so much of the decision to hold it, as of the subsequent and unsuccessful campaign to remain, recently revealed on our screens as having been outwitted by a slick if, at times, irresponsible operation acting below the radar of conventional politics and masterminded by an arch political disruptor. That referendum crystallised, but did not cause, the different views in the UK on whether we should remain part of the EU. Two countries voted to leave and two to remain. The consequences of that have been the focus of today’s debate.

I turn to the constructive proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in his Bill to help bind the UK together. I commend him for identifying the broadly undisputed purposes of the United Kingdom in Clause 2. I also applaud the heroic endeavour to distinguish between what are called “central policy areas” and matters that are devolved to the four national Parliaments. Here, I particularly welcome the requirement that the Governments of each nation co-operate on matters of national importance, such as aspects of defence and security. Co-operation is one of the key principles of our current memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Governments, and its operation over recent years has been positive. Such an approach should continue. I propose to say a word or two in a moment about one of the themes running through the debate on the relationship between government and the devolved Assemblies.

Reading the press release put out by the steering committee on 9 October, I was struck by the following sentence:

“the Bill asserts that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and (if it so chooses) England is each entitled to its own internal sovereignty”.

The noble Lord might find this an unfair comment, but I found it perverse that a Bill that seeks to bring us closer together should have as its starting point the total separation of the four parts of the union. Even if they subsequently agreed to pool sovereignty, that initial step and taste of sovereignty might make subsequent independence easier to achieve, a point made by my noble friend Lord Dunlop.

My first question on reading the Bill relates to the asymmetrical nature of current devolution settlements, which I think correctly reflects the different histories and cultures of our four nations. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all treated differently. The Bill does not appear to make provision for this, and has a one-size-fits-all approach that does not reflect the findings of the Silk and Smith commissions, nor the views of the people of the UK, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord McInnes.

My second question relates to one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, about adjusting the settlement over time to reflect changing circumstances. We can do that at the moment and we do so relatively easily. English votes for English laws is a case in point. It has embedded fairness and balance into Parliament’s law-making process, ensuring that MPs representing English constituencies can consent to legislation that affects only England while maintaining the key principle that all MPs from across the UK can debate, amend and vote on every piece of legislation.

We have also continued to move forward at pace to decentralise governance in England, bringing powers closer to the people so that services can be delivered that are attuned to their local needs. I challenge the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who I think said that little had changed since Redcliffe-Maud. Through the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, we have taken major steps to decentralise governance in England through devolution deals. Seven city regions are now headed up by their own elected mayors, with their own devolved powers and budgets.

I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. An enthusiastic debate over devolution is continuing across Yorkshire and a number of further suggestions have already been discussed locally. We are of course willing to discuss proposals that have support behind them, cover a sensible economic area and do not break up areas that already have long-standing integrated services. We are currently considering the information recently submitted by the 18 Yorkshire leaders, but we have always been clear that the first step to any devolution deal across Yorkshire is the full implementation of the 2015 Sheffield City Region devolution deal. We want Sheffield to enjoy the full benefits of its 2015 deal, including £900 million of investment.

Turning back to the Bill for a moment, the future changes set out in Part 2 of the Schedule seem infinitely more complicated and cumbersome, and risk locking us into a settlement that becomes outdated—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. Constitutional development in the UK needs to evolve to reflect circumstances of the day and be flexible enough to meet new challenges.

The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, will understand that his Bill is unlikely to have an easy passage. My attention was caught by Clause 28(1), which says:

“On commencement of this Section, the House of Lords shall cease to form part of Parliament”.


Well, we may need to spend a little time on that one. The noble Lord will understand better than anyone that a Bill heralding the most significant constitutional change in our history will take a Session or two to make progress.

What are the Government doing to strengthen the union during Brexit? We recognise the importance of working closely with the devolved Administrations throughout the negotiation process and welcome the regular engagement that has taken place through forums such as the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations and the Ministerial Forum on EU Negotiations.

Here I might depart from my text—always a risk—and say that one of the themes running through the debate has been what the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, called “imperial condescension”, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to as a “power grab”, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to in more derogatory terms. But it was clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said, that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right honourable friend David Lidington, wants his approach to have that element of respect and to promote good relationships.

I take on board the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord McConnell, my noble friend Lord McInnes and a number of others that this relationship should be rebooted. Comments were made about the regularity of the meetings and Ministers’ attendance. It is quite clear from this debate that the institutions and the quality of the dialogue need to be improved. As a result of the exchanges on that subject, I propose to talk to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whenever I can and feed through to him the theme that has consistently run through some of the speeches on both sides. I know that officials are working closely with counterparts in the devolved Administrations to take forward this review of intergovernmental relationships. On 19 December, the Prime Minister, together with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, reviewed the progress made so far of the review at the JMC. It is important for us to look, in the light of our debate, at the principles and machinery that underpin the relationships and how we can best ensure—

[Lord Dykes]

Since the Prime Minister is so overworked and busy, would it not be a good idea for David Lidington to be in charge of those detailed discussions?

Constitutional Convention

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

My Lords, I agreed with every single line of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but is it not a pity that I could not persuade her to be in favour of the European Union? That is the one thing lacking in her panoply of subjects and issues. I thank both her and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, whom I have never known make anything other than a very wise speech. I agreed with everything he said, too.

I particularly want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for his remarks. I will embarrass him deliberately by congratulating him on his speech yesterday evening, alongside Timothy Garton Ash, about the future and what we will give up if we foolishly leave the European Union. He spoke about the history of Europe and what it means to everybody. That applies to us, too. Why do people think we are an exception, talking about “wicked foreigners”? We are not like that. I will annoy everybody by mentioning Brexit; I do not know whether anybody else has; I was out of the Chamber for a while.

I will also annoy everybody by saying that although I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on his interesting suggestion, which I support, none of these attempts will work until we agree to have a written constitution for the United Kingdom. I am glad somebody mentioned that earlier, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said. I do not know who it was as I was out with visitors; I shall read the Official Report with interest. People still shy away at the mention of a constitution, saying, “Oh no, that’s a foreign invention. We don’t like that”. The middle paragraph of the excellent committee memo says that there is no movement forward because we cannot get it. It is always in the knapsack of the unruly party-political game. Scotland has been a success because it was removed from that, to some extent, but I will be careful about what I say because I do not want to annoy anyone.

We must think about what leaving Europe means, particularly for younger voters. They, and people travelling and working in other European countries, will lose the European citizenship rights courageously brought in by John Major in the Lisbon treaty. If that treaty is abandoned and we lose those European citizenship rights, as well as pride in our national sovereignty, we are doomed to a foolish system where no one will agree. There is no agreement on party funding, which we have been discussing for years. There is no agreement on changing the voting system; again, I agree with previous remarks. The first-past-the-post system is ludicrous and must be changed, but that cannot be done through politicians. The public will shy away from an agreement to have politicians round the table trying to set things up, so enormous is the hatred of and mistrust towards politicians after what has happened in the past few years.

We need an official body in charge to look at these things dispassionately, not in the way of party politicians fighting their corner, furthering their own interests and not agreeing on anything. We have seen the terrible experience of a paralysed country in the past few years. I did not get on very well with Mrs Thatcher when I was a Conservative MP; I think I was the most left-wing one. Somebody said, “You’re almost as left-wing as Harold Macmillan”. I replied, “That’s impossible”. I remember trying to tell her a joke once, which was a disastrous mistake. I had come from a visit to Germany, where I had seen the Bundestag in action; they were working on privatisation after we had done the same. The coalition government spokesman in the Bundestag said, “We’re going to do three very careful privatisations, after six months of discussions with all parties to get an agreement”. In the Division Lobby, I foolishly told Mrs Thatcher this. She said, “What a mistake. They’re so weak”. The joke was the idea of her agreeing with anyone else, although I suppose the Northern Ireland agreement, for which history will thank her, was the exception in the end.

The voting system must be changed and a written constitution introduced. That must be done through a super-high commission of officials and experts—people from universities and so on—to make sure that the politicians are kept under control and not allowed to rampage around with their prejudices and foolish ideas. Why have we not had agreement on party funding after so many years? Cameron said that we would have a £5,000 maximum. Why has that not been done? The crux of what other European member states say when we go to see them is: why are we paralysed? I also live in France, which has a written constitution. That makes its system much more democratic than ours; I am sorry to say it but that is the reality. The more we go on with our pride in our past and our historical empire analogies, the more doomed we will be.

EU Referendum: Conduct

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grocott]

We have heard enough from the remain side; let us hear from the other—

Referendums: Parliamentary Democracy

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

My Lords, we have had a debate of enormously high quality from all speakers today—a very special occasion. I hope, therefore, that I shall not be the exception, because I share the joint feelings of remorse and dismay about what has happened in this country, and the way that we have lost our way as a result of it. I am not decrying the result of many millions of votes—far from it. I am a great believer in collective democracy of that kind, but we have lost our way as a result of what really was a mistake made by people who have now been described as all having voted for the same reasons, but who did so for all sorts of different reasons. This is a national tragedy of unrivalled proportions that fills me with great gloom as well as a determination to try to help, in a modest way, to rectify the huge mistake that this country made in 2016.

In the meantime, however, this House has gained two excellent new stars in the firmament. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Pickles—whom I have always admired and whose career I followed as much as I could from a distance when he was in the House of Commons as a distinguished Member and, finally, a Cabinet Minister—and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. We thank them very much for their history, their remarks, and their commitment to this new place, which I hope they will not find too eccentric. I was particularly grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the breadth of his vision, and that important explanation about the European Court of Justice. I have always been an enthusiast for the European Union. I make no apology for that now and I have never reduced that view. In fact, it is now even more important to the health and welfare of all the member states than it ever was in the past.

We are lumbered in this country with the tragic misfortune of having five or six extreme, right-wing newspapers, owned by owners who, by the way, conveniently do not pay UK personal taxes and live as tax exiles, and who inflict on us long, boring editorials about the need for patriotism in Britain. For some reason, they have focused on anti-Europe as a main theme for their papers, which become comics and magazines rather than newspapers; they become propaganda sheets rather than genuine purveyors of news. It is the only European member state that has this tragedy and I regret it. I blame and feel bitter about the Murdoch experiment in this country, which did so much damage, and overlapped with other newspapers in the way that they dealt with things—we have to contend with that as well.

It is invidious in such an array of high-quality speeches to single any one out, but I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his words of great constitutional wisdom. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for what he said; I am tempted more and more to agree with him that the lack of a written constitution is a disadvantage rather than a plus point. We have always been proud of being different from the others in saying, “No, we don’t need a written constitution”. However, as the former Cabinet Secretary pointed out very clearly earlier in the debate, that has now become a mistake and a liability, and somehow we have to get through this.

As others have said, this is the first time that a referendum has been inflicted on the country without any particular rationalisation of why the country should vote either one way or another—except the emotional thing about staying in or leaving the European Union. It is totally different from the 1975 referendum. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. When we worked reluctantly with the Conservative Party on that, we disapproved of the referendum idea, but we all worked for a good result—there was one and the country settled down.

Why has this country remained the bad member of the European club? It is a club of friendly, sovereign countries working together, using majority voting sometimes and unanimity at other times, building up the European Union by treaty, and increasing the collective sovereignty of the whole body—as well as the individual sovereignty of the member states—whenever they make a collective decision. Most member states regard that as a good thing. Why has Britain been the unique exception to this and had this strange attitude that, somehow, it is them against us and they are doing us down? There is this hostility to the European Commission as well. It is one of the smallest civil services in world history, running on the instructions and requests of the European Parliament—which is democratically elected on an increasing turnout, and has more influence in the 50:50 system of legislation—the Council of Ministers and sovereign member states.

That is what we need to emphasise as we approach, I hope, the resolution of this ghastly crisis. The Government is in disarray and I am afraid the Prime Minister has made mistakes in handling this matter since the referendum result. I still wish her well in coping with it but, none the less, we have to deal with it and solve it, and restore the feelings and confidence of the people in our political system by restoring the sovereignty and strength of our parliamentary democracy.

Railways: Transport for the North

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, we have not had to wait for a Labour Government to devolve major powers to, for example, Manchester and other parts of the country. We have introduced metro mayors and combined authorities. We will continue to do that. People will not have to wait for this illusory dream that the noble Lord just referred to.

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

My Lords, following the surprisingly interesting intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will the Minister agree that privatisation of the railways has been an unmitigated disaster and the worst example of any large country in Europe of a very badly run system? Is it not now time for radical solutions, as we warned as MPs at the time when the noble Lord was one of the Ministers in charge of railway privatisation in the Commons in the early 1990s? What we now need is root-and-branch reform, with public ownership of the railway system itself but with private investors as well.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 9th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder if I might follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because he spoke a great deal of sense, in terms both of the debate that we had about retirements and the impact of the noble Lord’s amendment today. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that I was the Government Whip on the 1999 House of Lords Bill and I well recall our debates. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I accept that the noble Lord has raised a point of principle which it is quite right for us to debate. Of course, we are nearly 18 years on from that Bill and much has happened in the meantime.

The noble Lord is a very distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House. It is clear that he disagrees with the principle of my noble friend’s Bill. Why on earth did he not challenge at Second Reading or put a Motion down and let the House come to a view? Why is he engaging in a clear filibuster not just in the context of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has made about this House but at a time when we are very likely, depending on events, to be debating hugely important issues around Brexit? Does he really think it sensible to set a precedent that filibustering is to be allowed in your Lordships’ House? I would caution him against that activity. I hope that when he comes to wind up he will explain what he is doing, why he has not allowed his amendments to be grouped and why he is not allowing the House essentially to come to a view on the principle.

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

My Lords, I support the two previous interjections. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for many years of toil, with others, in the modernisation and reform group which he has led. I came into this House in 2004. I have always regarded myself as a friend of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and he of me—we know each other well. I regard the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, as a man of great wisdom and as a hard-working and diligent Peer—in fact, we are all effectively full-time working Peers nowadays, which counts for a lot. However, I beg the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, as a friend, to reconsider pressing these amendments, with the damage that they will do to the reputation of this House. I ask him to think again and to bear in mind the suggestions that have been made already by people with more authority than me in these matters, hoping that he and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will have the courage and wisdom to respond.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I had a small walk-on part—not as distinguished as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—in 1999 and remember well the statesmanlike endeavour undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and the then Lord Cranborne, now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. They effected an extremely difficult compromise, which did not give satisfaction on all sides, to enable an important piece of constitutional reform to go forward. It was a distinguished piece of statesmanship, a compromise was made and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, said at the time in this House that it would remain “binding in honour” on all those who had taken any part in it. When I first came to this House, I was told that the one thing that a Member of your Lordships’ House had to do was to stand on his or her honour. I would therefore find it extremely difficult, short of the final reform of this House, to accept the removal and breaking of that compromise which enabled a great piece of legislation to be passed by the party opposite.

It is disappointing that a mugging party has arisen attacking my noble friend even before we have entered fully into the debate on this subject. It is not much of a filibuster by my noble friend, who spoke for just two minutes. I have heard more effective filibusters in my time.

I would hope that a sensible spirit of compromise could emerge. I discussed these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and I understand that people opposed to the hereditary principle want to see it removed from the House. Most hereditary Peers I speak to—I should make it clear to those who are not aware that I am certainly not a hereditary Peer— do not object to the principle being removed from the House. The question is how, when and in what circumstances.

I concede that another reason why you might wish to remove hereditary Peers—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, does not have this purpose—is to secure some party advantage. Clearly, these Benches and the Cross-Benches have more to lose from the removal of the hereditary Peers than the Labour Party or the Liberals. There is a party political issue that needs to be discussed. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, would consider that, but it is another matter to be considered.

I am pleased that the Government said—if it is what they said—that this Bill should not go forward. This chip needs to remain on the table. Of course, the ultimate intention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and my noble friend Lord Salisbury at the time was that we would get to a place where the House would be reformed.

My noble friend Lord Cormack is a rather more regular speaker than I am, so perhaps he will allow me some comment on this subject. He said what a scandal it is that some Peers are here on only three votes but I am here on the vote of one person, by patronage. We should be a bit more cautious in being high and mighty about the methods by which certain noble Lords get here, when each one of us was happy enough to catch the eye of a selector, be it Tony Blair, Mr Ashdown, Mr Cameron or whoever it might have been.

The hereditary system we have now is a funny one but I have only one amendment tabled and that is to draw attention to the disproportionate representation of the very Benches that said, “Hear, hear”, when my noble friend Lord Cormack said that it was pretty odd that the hereditary Peers are here. I think it is pretty odd that there are a hundred of those chaps over there.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I thank the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for their comments. Where there was discord, we have brought a bit more harmony, at least, on this point. There is clearly disagreement on the need for such a measure, but I would argue that that is precisely why we need the data. What the data will show will determine whether the reserve power needs to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. I very much hope that the assurances I have given today address a number of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and others.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, about bureaucracy, I simply repeat that a considerable section of the public sector already considers publishing information on facility time to be best practice. I highlighted what is published in the local government transparency code and what the Department for Education recommends that all schools publish. His point about bureaucracy—ensuring that it is kept to a minimum—is of course one that every Government wish to heed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised the question of other issues that are deemed to be relevant. In essence, they must be relevant without being capable of being specified now, because that will be set out in the evidence given when the Government bring in regulations—which, as I said, would be debated by both Houses of Parliament.

With that, I am once again grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for their constructive comments and the conversations we have had. I beg to move.

[Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)]

Before the Minister sits down, I intervene briefly to repeat the thanks already expressed by other Peers in the debate on these amendments today and on the previous occasion when the Bill was being considered. We give our thanks to the Government, to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, particularly for their very helpful adjustments and changes in response to the earlier debates. It was an outstanding example of how the House of Lords can be genuinely useful to the British public in improving controversial legislation. We are grateful for that progress.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, last week at Third Reading I thanked at some length all those who have worked so hard and debated so eloquently throughout the passage of this Bill. I am glad to be able to thank today my noble friend Lord Bridges, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Burns, as they are actually in the Chamber. It has been a small marathon of a Bill and I am delighted that it can now go forward for Royal Assent.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, I wish to make a few comments and add my thanks at this stage of the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on her courtesy and good humour during the passage of a Bill that we on these Benches have regarded as somewhat partisan. She has sought to cross that divide and we are grateful for the amendments she has persuaded the Government to accept.

The role of the Cross Benches has been very important. It has not been mentioned but the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake, Lord Pannick and Lord Burns have all played a very important part in the Bill and in achieving the amendments. I have enjoyed working with the Labour Benches and rekindling old friendships. I hope that it will be a basis for other matters in the future in this Session of Parliament.

We have regarded it as a very partisan Bill. We regret that it does not address the real issues for the country—the economy and productivity—and we hope that the Government will accept the amendments that the House of Lords has passed on political funds and electoral balloting when it goes back.

[Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)]

I, too, thank the Ministers for listening closely and attentively to the various suggestions made for improving the Bill. It has been a listening ministerial team and we are very grateful for that. It is an indication of what can be done in what in many ways is the more thoughtful part of the two Chambers of the body politic and parliamentary bodies of the United Kingdom constitution. I say that with no disrespect to MPs: they have their own pressures and their own electorates to satisfy, as well as many other things, and must pay attention to their party manifestos.

The House of Lords has the opportunity for more detailed, careful and objective consideration of measures that may be unwise—or which perhaps have been hastily drafted for various reasons—and can be improved. The link between the two Houses therefore is that if the House of Lords defers to the primacy of the House of Commons, one hopes very much that the House of Commons will defer to the intelligence and wisdom of the Lords in making suggestions for improvements through detailed amendments to some of the technical parts of this Bill, and that that will echo the co-operation between the two Houses. That, in other words, is what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to just now. It is an important matter in the future for all parties as well as those on the Cross Benches.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, my speech is redundant, which is really good news, and I fully associate myself with his remarks.

The Government should not have brought this provision forward at all and I fear that it reflects the tribal nature of the historical relationship between the two main parties. Such tribalism is not edifying or appropriate today where we see the best relationships between employers and trade unions in partnerships that promote productivity, prosperity and peace. So I would like to say well done to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe; it cannot have been easy to achieve what she has pulled off.

[Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I add my comments in support of what has been said. I had a feeling that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, and the other Ministers associated with this Bill would be in listening mode, bearing in mind the contents of the debates hitherto.

My shock and dismay at the original text of this Bill was enormous and I think that was shared by people in all parts of the House. The Bill did not look properly constructed nor did it utilise non-extreme ideology to deal with any modernisation necessities for trade unions—some of which one doubts. In January I received a very interesting briefing from the FDA, an association of professional managers and others, which is not in any way known for extremism. In relation to the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, to trade union members dreaming about causing industrial action as they go to work in the morning, the FDA says:

“Much of the portrayed justification for change relates to an utterly refutable assumption that trade unions call for industrial action on a regular basis and without cause. FDA members only embark on industrial action as a last resort. As a union with an almost 100 year history we have held national industrial action only once, yet it is a fundamental right for all working people to have the option to take industrial action and we strongly oppose moves to deny workers this right”.

In a way the same rights intrinsically belong to check-off and I sincerely ask Ministers to be in listening mode for other parts of this Bill, so that it can be improved if they insist on it carrying on—people have quite rightly indicated that there is probably no need for this Bill but since the Government are perhaps psychologically committed to seeing it progress I ask that they do that. In the mean time, my sense of shock has diminished. I did not write a speech over the weekend because I thought there might be some progress and I warmly thank the Ministers for their reaction today.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, at the risk of contributing to this lordly love-in, I want to refer to an additional reason why I very much welcome the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, about the opportunity to think again between now and Third Reading. Clause 14 relies hugely on secondary legislation—on regulations—including new subsection (3), which would have been the subject of government Amendment 21A. As we all too often recognise in this House, the devil is in the detail, and that is particularly so in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Prosser on tabling this amendment and on the very elegant adjustment to the amendment, which I think addresses some of the Government’s concerns. In keeping with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I hope that on this they will be even more in listening mode and that we might be able to make some changes on this. However, we are very grateful for what they have done thus far today.

The amendment raises an issue that I have been particularly exercised about during the passage of the Bill. I am not, and never have been, a trade unionist and I have never been a member of a trade union. I am a businessman and have been involved in business for most of my life when I have not been involved in politics. One area of the Bill that has always concerned me is that there has been a complete lack of appreciation of the significance of the function and role of management. These things are tremendously important, and the amendment provides an important message that I hope the Government will be able to find ways to reinforce. The message is that engagement between management and employees is a key lever in making a difference in companies and a key mechanism of performance.

Much of the Bill addresses the problems of yesteryear, but I hope that we can start addressing the problems of the future, including how we optimise our performance in all areas, especially in business. Other places have made leaps and bounds in their public sector organisations and private sector companies through effective business process redesign, and it worries me hugely that we have not done as well here because we do not engage with employees as well as other places have shown is possible. In that area, we have a huge amount to do. That is why this sort of provision and process is important. We cannot forget the role of good management and good leadership in being able to make the sorts of changes that we want.

When we look at our public services and at the sorts of companies and adaptabilities that we want, we have to recognise that there is a massive role for management and leadership. I have never known of employees not wanting to engage with their management and leadership, and, apart from in the depths of some disputes, I have never known of trade unions not wishing to engage with management and leaders. But I have known far too many examples of when the management and leadership of companies have not taken that opportunity or not done it well enough. It would be very encouraging if the Government were to do something to ensure that people understood the importance of effective employee engagement and effective work with trade unions, which can make a huge difference to our country.

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, on her proposed new clause. I hope that it will be fully and enthusiastically accepted in this debate today. This is a great opportunity to try to put right some of the deficiencies and weaknesses that we see even now in modern industrial relations in Britain, despite attempts at improvement from time to time.

The tragedy of the “them” and “us” disease—the two nations in industrial relations: the bosses and the employees—is still very strong. Incidentally, although this is not part of the Bill, the very fact that the highly paid executives who run companies are paying themselves far too much in comparison with what people earn on the shop floor is a very dangerous element that contributes to the anger and resentment that is felt in the great divide between the shop floor and the director’s boardroom. It is a great tragedy that, given the modernisation that we expected, with foreign companies coming in and all that the Japanese and Koreans have done to create a new, more modern system, we have not yet made sufficient progress. However, we are beginning to.

I remember vividly that when I was a Member of Parliament for Harrow, more than 30 years ago, I visited within eight weeks the Volkswagen works in Wolfsburg in Germany and British Leyland. British Leyland was going through one of its perpetual crises, mainly because of not the unions but the failure of management to engage their employees and to liaise with them properly. As you can imagine—I am not making this up—the meeting at the Wolfsburg Volkswagen works, one of the biggest motor works in Germany and the world in those days, started at 7.30 am. There was breakfast for an hour and a half, which was black coffee and black bread, and then a tour of the factory for two and a half hours. We then had an early lunch in the canteen, with the employees, directors and bosses eating at the same tables.

Some weeks later, I went to the British Leyland meeting, which, in contrast, started at 11.30 am. It was a half-hour visit to the factory, which was not very long, and we were told that we must make progress but could ask questions later. There was an hour of gin and tonics in the boardroom with the director—a very agreeable English habit that we have—and then a sumptuous lunch in the directors’ dining room, miles away from the workers’ canteen. That was a long time ago and I think that things have improved in many enterprises, so I should not decry that. But it is still not enough. There is still a sinister division between employees and employers in this country, and the pay gap is really menacing for the future of British society and its equilibrium. It has to be tackled one way or another—but that is not, of course, part of this Bill.

I very much agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and thank him for them. He has experience both of the corporate world and of assisting in trade union activities. He cast a warning about these matters, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. So the Government, having been in listening mode on some specific amendments to earlier aspects of the Bill, have a great opportunity now to re-educate some of their ministerial colleagues about these matters, because the “them” and “us” doctrine is deeply embedded among many Conservative Ministers still. That is a great tragedy for this country and does impede our efforts. We helped the Germans have a much healthier system when we were there as the occupying power after the war. What a great irony that was. So now we have an opportunity for Ministers to respond to these matters. This may be a very general matter and not a specific, technical amendment, but it is a very important new clause. I hope that the Government will respond very positively.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to consider wider aspects of industrial relations in the Trade Union Bill. This conversation builds on the valuable debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, last November, which I found extremely useful. The knowledge and expertise in this House is, as usual, impressive. I always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, on the role of good management and the need to engage and inspire employees.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for joining the debate. He is right to mention the importance of appropriate executive remuneration. His tales of Germany reminded me of my time on a German board. But we need to bear in mind that the UK’s growth and dynamism have been greater than Germany’s in recent years. That matters to millions of employees and families right across our country.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, for bringing her amendment back again and to my noble friend Lord Courtown for the work that he has done with her on this important matter. The Government recognise the value of good employee engagement. We know that it contributes to improved productivity and business growth. Indeed, as a personnel director many years ago in the Civil Service and more recently from my first-hand experience through links with USDAW when I was at Tesco, I have definitely seen the benefits. I am grateful for the work on employee engagement by my department and others and am pleased that businesses are now more aware of its importance. In 2015, the CBI employment trends survey highlighted that a top priority for business in the coming year was better employee engagement to foster productive workplaces.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, has already told us, there has been a lot of activity. The Prime Minister launched the employee engagement task force in 2011. One of its main achievements has been the development of an employee engagement community, which has promoted the benefits and various approaches to employee engagement. The task force comprised a wide range of businesses, including entrepreneurs and HR professionals. In addition, ACAS has produced an online productivity tool to allow employers to look at which of the seven levers of productivity are most important. There is a range of guidance on each element, one of which is a “strong employee voice”. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, would commend ACAS’s work in this area, and support the work of her successor there, Sir Brendan Barber, in this matter. These initiatives and others have shown that employers want flexibility to decide how best to engage with their employees, and while unions play an important role, they are not the only mechanism for effective engagement.

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice that would require all employers to establish a mechanism of employee engagement via trade unions. From my experience, I believe that a prescriptive approach would be ineffective. For small businesses and sectors that are not heavily unionised, having unions as the only mechanism for employee engagement would also be a practical challenge. While I do not believe that we should limit choice, I do agree that the role of employee engagement in positive industrial relations should be highlighted when we come to explain the changes to the industrial relations landscape brought about by the Trade Union Bill.

To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, it struck me that there have been a lot of moves forward, but those initiatives do not have the salience that they need. I would be happy to commit my department to bring together interested parties to discuss not only existing work on employee engagement but how we can raise awareness of its importance as part of the changes that we bring in with the Bill—and how that can link in to the ongoing issue of productivity, which has been a priority for my department ever since the productivity plan we published last July. I hope that I have shown that the Government value the role of employee engagement and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.