Trade Union Bill

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, Clauses 10 and 11 implement our manifesto commitment for a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions. We had substantial discussion last week in this House about these clauses following, and informed by, the excellent work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his Select Committee. I share the tributes paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, to the committee, its staff and the speed of its proceedings.

These clauses are about the relationship between trade union members and their unions. They are not about the relationship between union members and political parties. The relationship between trade union members and their unions should be based on transparency and choice—an active choice, not a theoretical choice buried in fine print.

There are a number of areas where I believe progress has been made and where there is consensus. Principally, the Select Committee accepted that members should be asked to make an active choice when contributing to a union’s political fund. In looking to achieve wider consensus, the Select Committee has looked for a middle ground. I appreciate these efforts, but I believe that when it comes to the treatment of existing union members the proposals have not gone far enough. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for which I thank him warmly, would not extend opt-in to existing members, only to new members. My noble friend Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, one of the hard-working members of the committee, put it well when he talked about this being a wrecking amendment in that respect.

The Select Committee concurred with the Government’s view that the current approach has not operated with enough transparency. All members are not consistently informed about their rights. If it is deemed right that new members are required to make an active opt-in choice, I do not understand why the same principle does not apply to existing members.

It is not acceptable in many areas of daily life automatically to deduct payment for a cause or purpose that has not been actively consented to. We see that in consumer law, financial services, marketing communications and the way charities approach potential donors. I have not heard a compelling reason why we should treat all union members differently.

We debated at length last week the wider and distinct agenda of political party funding. Some have argued that pursuing only a partial opt-in system can be justified, given the lack of consensus on party funding reform—the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned this. It is a difficult problem to crack and I shall not seek to repeat what was said in the discussion last week. Our trade union reforms are about the transparency arrangements between a union and its members. I quote again from page 19 of the Conservative manifesto:

“We will … legislate to ensure trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions”.

The Select Committee agreed that we had not cherry-picked from the 2011 report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and recognised our democratic mandate to introduce an opt-in process, irrespective of agreement or not on party funding.

[Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and apologise for intervening early in her remarks. Her reference to a manifesto commitment is of course a valid point, except that we all know that manifesto commitments are abandoned quite frequently by parties in the course of events and do not proceed, that the manifesto is based on a Government elected by 24% of the electorate and that only some 0.4% of the population read any of its paragraphs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for moving this amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, for what she has just said. Once again this indicates that on the unaffiliated or Cross Benches there has been a considerable collective contribution of good suggestions to restore a sense of balance and proportion into what was far too ideological a matter in the original drafts of the documents that eventually became the Trade Union Bill launched by the Conservative Party in government.

I am advised by the research I sought to do that these matters are very important from the point of view of ordinary, routine, daily trade union activity with employers in the context of the public sector and private company entities in which they work. The main activities in the practical usage of facility time include: negotiating improved pay and conditions for members and the wider workforce and accessing specialist union training on employment rights; accompanying individuals in their disciplinary or grievance hearings; carrying out health and safety duties; training people who are not yet trained on health and safety matters; and promoting learning opportunities and opportunities for further intellectual activity in the entities in which they work.

Those are routine matters, not matters that, I am sure, in the original draft text in Conservative Central Office, before it became the Bill launched by this Government—on the basis of only 24% of the population—were ideological clauses based on the belief that there was some kind of union racket in this facility time element. That simply is not the case on all the evidence we have. Once again I hope that the Government will be tempted to see reason on this and accept the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 20 and the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. I will concentrate my brief remarks on the provisions in the Bill that relate to safety reps, and in doing so I declare my interests as president of RoSPA and a vice-president of the LGA. Concentrating on health and safety reps is not in any way meant to undermine the broader thrust of the amendment as it applies more generally.

As a preamble, I reiterate points raised in Committee about the importance of TU safety reps and the positive impact that they have on the safety culture of their employers. There is an abundance of evidence about the importance of effective health and safety systems and that these systems work best when trade unions and employers work together. That is why the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act gave legal backing to union safety reps and why, rather than seeking to undermine or weaken the system, the Government should be concerned with its promotion and enhancement.

I would argue that the Government are in error in including health and safety reps’ time as facility time. Facility time is time off from an individual’s job granted by the employer to enable a representative to carry out their trade union role. We have heard why this should not be constrained in the manner proposed in the Bill. A safety rep, however, although appointed by a trade union, does not fulfil a trade union role as such. It is a specific legal position with defined functions, and the regulations state that in this capacity it must represent all workers in a workplace, not just union members.

This comes about not only from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act but by Article 11 of the 1989 EU framework directive which deals with consultation and participation of workers. The directive specifically states:

“Employers must allow workers’ representatives with specific responsibility for the safety and health of workers adequate time off work, without loss of pay, and provide them with the necessary means to enable such representatives to exercise their rights and functions deriving from this Directive”.

There is no limit on this, but it would have to be reasonable. The UK regulations use the phrase “as shall be necessary”, which will obviously vary from workplace to workplace and from time to time. The exercise of reserve powers under Clause 13, which are triggered by consideration of the information requirements of Clause 12, would be entirely inconsistent with the directive, which focuses on the need for adequate time off to exercise rights and functions. The latter must have regard to the circumstances of individual workplaces, which, as I say, can vary from location to location and from time to time.

Moreover, the legal requirement under the directive is for the employer to comply in allowing time off. This is as it should be, because it is generally the employer who creates the risks which have to be managed. It is not for the Government to second-guess in respect of either public sector workplaces in aggregate or individual workplaces in particular. Can the Government spell out for us the circumstances in which they envisage using these reserve powers to limit the time of safety representatives otherwise agreed between an employer and a trade union? What evidence do they have that there is an abuse of the system as the law stands? The Minister in the other place, Nick Boles, is on record as acknowledging that:

“An employer must allow them”—

safety reps—

“as much paid time off work as is necessary or reasonable to perform their statutory functions, and we absolutely do not propose to change that rule”.—[Official Report, Commons, Trade Union Bill Committee, 22/10/ 15; col. 352.]

In that case, why they are potentially subject to reserve powers in Clause 13 and why will the Government not remove those powers?

There is one other point. The Bill applies only to trade union representatives. The Minister will be aware that there are two sets of regulations covering workplace representatives: the 1977 regulations, which apply only to trade union reps, and the 1996 regulations, which apply to representatives for workplace safety in non-unionised workplaces. If the Bill is passed in its current form, the Government will be able to restrict time off given to trade union representatives in the public sector but not to non-trade union ones. Is this the intention and why do the Government seek to discriminate against trade union reps in this manner? Can the Minister tell us how this measure is consistent with the fairness obligation that was set out at the start of our proceedings?

Chilcot Inquiry

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, for launching this debate and raising some of the very searching questions that he did, quite rightly. On 1 July at Question Time he referred to these matters and suggested that there should be some kind of interim publication.

None of us can be other than extremely sympathetic to the role that the hapless—I use the word deliberately—Sir John Chilcot has had to undertake in this inquiry. He is regarded as a person of great integrity, probity and distinction in his field. In many ways, there could not have been a better choice. But I was very struck on 4 February when the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Commons, chaired by Richard Ottaway, had its hearing with him. The then right honourable Sir Menzies Campbell—now the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem—asked,

“do you ever rue the day that you were asked to take on this responsibility, Sir John?”.

Sir John Chilcot said:

“I try very hard not to rue the day”.

He went on to say:

“May I put it this way, Sir Ming? All of us, and I say this in seriousness, are determined to get this thing done. None of us thought it would take this long. We want to get it done, but we are not going to get it done by scamping the work or failing in the essential principles that we have set ourselves: everything we say and conclude must be based on evidence. It’s got to be fair; it’s got to be impartial; it’s got to be rigorous—all of that”.

That must therefore be the background once again to the putative timetable for the eventual publication—I very much agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on these matters—of the substance of what happened in those terrible events in 2003: the declaration of a war that was illegal, only certificated by the UN under pressure afterwards; the worst possible post-war Foreign Office decision apart from Suez for the United Kingdom; the mistakes that were made.

In the debate which I raised in July 2014, which I think was probably the last substantial debate on this matter in this House apart from exchanges at Question Time, I was very struck by the contribution of a non- politician and a non-lawyer, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, who is not here today. He said this of the commemorations of the First World War and all that:

“That is germane to what we are talking about because we owe it to the many people who gave their lives so bravely and to the many families that lost relatives to always look with microscopic attention at the reasons for going to war. We know now that many mistakes were made and we really should be trying to use the example of those errors to never make them again. That is why this inquiry is so terribly important. Then we have the families of those representing us who were bereaved in Iraq and—because of our actions there, arguably—the people who are still losing their lives”.—[Official Report, 1/7/14; col. 1698.]

That was when events were still taking place afterwards. It also applies to the fate of Iraqi civilians. That should be a substantial part of this report.

I remember vividly an exchange at Question Time before 1 July 2014 when I complained about the delay and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, a former Foreign Secretary, who is not here today, said that the delay was a scandal, whatever the reasons for it, on the body politic and the public interest. Why was it so important for them to turn on Saddam Hussein if regime change was not the main driver? Why did Tony Blair have those embarrassing exchanges in 2002 when there was no question of there being any declaration of war? Why did the then Government ignore the instinct and feelings of 1.5 million people marching down Piccadilly to protest about what was still an illegal war? Why did the Americans and the British ignore the wise advice of the French Government under President Chirac and Foreign Secretary Dominique de Villepin about the mistake of going to war on that occasion? Those things must come up now and all I say in response to the very apposite points made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is that it has to be quam celerrime and not too soon. We look forward to seeing the timetable on 3 November and then making a judgment. Possibly there should be another debate in the House of Lords on this matter as soon as possible after that.

Chilcot Inquiry

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, once again I have to say that we will have to learn these lessons. My noble friend makes a very valid point, but the inquiry is independent and it is following the process that it has set out.

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords—

Palestine: Recognition

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, for initiating this debate. I admire the great courage of the MPs on 13 October last in reaching, with a very substantial majority, a decision to recognise a Palestinian state. It is time to make progress on this long-standing dispute, which has become agonising for more and more people.

A long time ago, when I was an MP in Harrow, I was brought in as a peacemaker to deal with two main feuding groups on the local council. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I sound boastful because, to my surprise, we succeeded in that aim. I said at the meeting that there were two vital conditions which had to be met: first, it must last only an hour and a half maximum; and, secondly, no one on either side was allowed to refer to the past. Someone asked, “What is the past?”, and I replied, “Two minutes ago; that is the past”. That is what you have to do when you are making peace with these two factions—one a government and a state, and the other a partial state, which hopes soon to be a state, and its ruling group in the Palestinian Authority.

Before we hear the winding-up speeches, three of my distinguished friends who, like me, are enthusiasts for Israel—the noble Lords, Lord Gold and Lord Turnberg, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—will speak. I want them to help me. Since I became involved in politics, I have been a lifelong friend of Israel. I went there in 1970 and helped many Soviet Jews come to Israel from Russia. Some of them went to the United States instead, but most went to Israel. I helped them with Aliyah and all that. I have been a tremendous friend of Israel over many years. However, I do not like going there anymore. I do not enjoy it, although I used to. When I first went there in the 1970s and 1980s, it was a terrific, pleasant and agreeable country, but it is a country based on unfair politics towards the Palestinians. The Palestinians have so little, the Israelis have so much. There must be geopolitical generosity and realism in these matters.

The other regard in which the Israelis are privileged, and why the balance between the two peoples is unfair, concerns the behaviour of the United States. The United States did not say, “We regard you both as equal entities in this dispute and we want to help you resolve it”. It said, “No, we are automatic preferential friends of the State of Israel and that is our priority, and always will be”. There has been the grotesque invitation to Netanyahu to stir up trouble with Iran. Of all things, we least need that of stirring up trouble with Iran and making provocative noises about it in the US Congress just because the Iranian question is enmeshed in the long-standing dispute between the Democratic and Republican parties. The United States Government did not need to do that and Barack Obama has disappointed us all by resuming the vetoes which allowed Israel to misbehave repeatedly and disobey international law completely. That shows the lack of balance between the two sides. We did not expect that all the way through. I think that there have been 36 vetoes since 1968, most of them under Chapter 7.

Israel completely ignores the UN Security Council resolutions. The recent very moderate Jordanian resolution could easily have been accepted by the United States. Britain abstained as well. What kind of lead is that? The EU quartet has behaved grotesquely and let everybody down. I agree that Israel needed protection at the beginning when it was starting out as a state and after 1967 as well. But once defences were rightly built up to protect Israel, which you have to do realistically, and Israel became an unbeatable military power, the precondition the other way is that Israel then negotiates sensibly with the Palestinians to give them a place in the sun as well, and a state alongside Israel, not this nonsense of waiting yet again. Almost 50 years have passed now.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he was rightly expelled after a year by the international community. Everybody approved of that. Israel’s invasion of the West Bank took place in 1967. “Invasion” was the right word used by the general who was mentioned by a previous speaker. Israel is still there now after nearly 50 years. This is a grotesque injustice. Most of my Israeli friends know that it is wrong and a lot of them are campaigning against it. We welcome what is done through B’Tselem, JJP and American Jews for a Just Peace, and now a new group has been formed. The AIPAC grip must be lessened in the United States as it is disastrous for the Congress. We should beware of the inexorable rise of the military-industrial complex, as has happened in Israel as well.

We want to make Israel again a pleasant and fair country to visit. I hope that my three colleagues who will speak before the winding-up speeches will help me by making some constructive suggestions, thinking about the future and not harping again and again on the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gold (Con)]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Steel, not only on securing this debate but on finding a neat way of dealing with the difficult issue of how you negotiate with a terrorist organisation. One thing is sure: if we recognise Palestine as a state now, there will not be any need to negotiate with the terrorists because they will not negotiate with Israel or any other country seeking to broker a settlement. Negotiation inevitably means compromise. Why should the terrorists compromise? They will have achieved their main goal, without giving away anything. They will have statehood without conditions and without compromise, and, most of all, without having to recognise that the State of Israel exists and is entitled so to do. All they need to do is sit back, set off a few more rockets and wait until the UN resolves to give them even more.

Acknowledging that Israel exists and is entitled to exist has been the major stumbling block previously when the Palestinians have been offered a peaceful way to achieve their own state. They were offered and rejected statehood three times. The first occasion was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, said, in November 1947, when by Resolution 181 the UN called for the creation of both a Jewish and a Palestinian state. The second was in the summer of 2000, when Yasser Arafat rejected the Barak peace plan. That plan offered the Palestinians all of Gaza, most of the West Bank and no Israeli control over the border with Jordan or the adjacent Jordan Valley. There was a small Israeli annexation around three settlement blocs, but this was balanced by an equivalent area of Israeli territory that would have been ceded to the Palestinians. In 2008, Prime Minister Olmert extended the Barak proposal by offering to split Jerusalem. President Abbas rejected this, too.

In its 1988 charter, Hamas, which controls Gaza, called for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine in place of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel. That demand has never changed. On that issue, Hamas has been and remains uncompromising.

All here want peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Most would support the two-state solution, but this is not the way to achieve it. Just as we are debating here, in this mother of Parliaments, the proposition—

[Lord Dykes]

My noble friend has got up to 1988. Could he not think about the future, as I asked earlier?

[Lord Gold]

I am coming to the future right now. As we are debating here, in the mother of Parliaments, the proposition that we should unilaterally recognise Palestine as a state, I challenge those supporting this resolution to persuade their friends to reconvene the Palestinian Parliament—the future is in the Palestinian Legislative Council, which has not met since the Fatah-Hamas dispute in 2007—and table a similar resolution, that the Palestinians should recognise the State of Israel and its right permanently to exist. However, this is Alice in Wonderland. We all know that such a proposition is fanciful, and that it could never happen. I apologise for my unparliamentary language, but let us get real and acknowledge that, far from making progress, recognising a Palestinian state now would set the peace process back indefinitely.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, I want to look forward. In this House and in the other place there are many friends both of Israel and of the Palestinians. If we use those friendships and that influence to persuade both sides to resume negotiations, we will be giving peace a far greater chance than through one-sided, unhelpful resolutions that will have the opposite effect, of setting the process backwards.

Chilcot Inquiry

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to suggest that the report of the Chilcot inquiry is published before the start of the pre-election purdah.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord in my Answer of 3 November, the inquiry is completely independent of government. It is up to Sir John Chilcot to decide when to submit the inquiry’s report to the Prime Minister. I continue to hope that its conclusions will shortly be available for all to see.

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

I am certainly not blaming my noble friend, and least of all Sir John Chilcot, but is not this continuing delay an utter and total disgrace after so much time has elapsed? Is my noble friend aware that more and more people think that it is some kind of attempt to prolong the agony for Mr Blair facing possible war crimes charges?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we all regret the delay, but I wish to stress that this is not unusual for inquiries of this sort. I know that we were all looking at the al-Sweady inquiry as part of our Christmas reading. That took five years to report on two battles in one afternoon and cost £24 million. The Baha Mousa inquiry, looking into the death in UK custody of one Iraqi civilian in September 2003, took three years and cost £13.5 million. This inquiry has been looking at nine years of British policy and operations within Iraq. It is not entirely unexpected, therefore, that it has turned out to take a long time.

Political Parties: Funding

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of the absence of an agreement on party funding by the political parties. This mainly, of course, affects the activities of the House of Commons rather than our own but it also reverberates throughout British politics.

I have to start on a sad and depressed note, which is unusual for me because I am normally a cheerful personality, I hope—at least that is what most members of my family still say to me. I feel sorry for MPs collectively because in recent years there has been a huge demoralisation in the House of Commons. This is a severe problem. British politics is in the doldrums, as we are all aware, and wondering how to get out of it. I am grateful, therefore, that the Minister is here today. I am sure he has many ideas on this issue but, in the time he has to discuss them today, he will concentrate mostly on the subject of the debate.

The reasons for this demoralisation are various. All party leaders actively overreacted, almost to the point of hysteria, on the MPs’ expenses scandal. There were some bad examples but the demoralisation of the House of Commons resulted from people being unfairly accused of doing things they did not do or which they did by mistake. Only a small number of MPs did anything seriously wrong—and they were, quite rightly, punished if that was appropriate—but others were driven out of politics without having done anything wrong. I can give plenty of names if anyone wants them.

Another reason over the long term was the blocking of MPs’ wage rises by various Prime Ministers. When I first came into politics, my boss, Edward Heath, was the only Prime Minister to immediately accept the independent recommendation of a substantial wage increase for MPs from, in those days, £3,000 to £4,500. Ever since then, every Prime Minister, of whatever hue, has blocked rises and the demoralisation caused by the freezing of MPs’ wages has partly produced that absence of morale.

On the question of party funding, there was much optimism when the subject was launched either side of the beginning of the coalition Government and afterwards. When Labour was replaced by a coalition for the first time in the post-war period, there was optimism that it might produce a better system in which people would be inclined to agree more. The party funding system was regarded as a serious problem which needed to be tackled. As we know, a committee was set up which produced some notable suggestions and I again commend its work. Could the politicians, the political leaders, their representatives and advisers agree on anything that emerged from the imbroglio unleashed by this quest for some kind of agreement on party funding? You had only to see the headlines in the papers, of whatever colour, in those days about how they were struggling to get there. One paper, at the end of October 2011, referred to the idea of using public money—£3 for every vote—as a state funding plan for political parties. Immediately most of the press objected violently to that idea. However, it happens in other countries—Germany is a notable example—on a large scale and helps to produce more sensible, modern, up-to-date politics dealing with complicated political economies, as Britain is.

Then, because austerity was gradually deepening, the parties got nervous about even suggesting that. They said that in a time of austerity it would be quite wrong of them to seek to use public money, although relatively small amounts had always been used for party research activities and so on—the Short money and the Cranborne money in the House of Lords. MPs urged swift action to limit donations to political parties. What a problem that now is. We have recently seen more and more donors coming to this place. I have to be careful in what I say because of course the Liberal Democrat Party has recently benefited from a £1 million bequest from Professor Watson of Cambridge University. At least it is not a donation from a living person. It is gratefully received by our party, which has a very modest budget of about only £4 million or £5 million in comparison with the larger figures for the other leading parties.

The three main political parties pledged in their election campaigns to take big money out of politics. They were embarrassed by the stories of huge donations, mainly for the Conservatives but also for the others, including ourselves. A fraudster who had offered us £2.5 million went to prison. There were mistakes, scandals and dramatic headlines. The Conservatives ended up offering their business supporters a sort of tariff of what they could get by contributing certain amounts of money. If they paid £2,000, they could have,

“a lively programme of drinks receptions, dinner and discussion groups”.

For £5,000, they could,

“meet and debate with MPs at a series of political lunches and receptions”.

For £10,000 they could have,

“dinners and political debate with eminent speakers from … business and politics”,

and for £25,000—I pause here for effect—they could,

“join senior figures from the … Party at dinners, lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign lunches”.

It is not only the Conservatives who do that; we all do it, although perhaps in a more modest way.

Again, it is a symptom of the problem that we really have to deal with, with consensus, on a cross-party basis. There is no harm in occasionally having a bit of consensus in British politics on major issues such as this. I feel that the public are turned off by the instantaneous opposition to a suggestion from another political party in order to compete with it as though an election is hovering. Of course, there is a general election approaching now and we have to acknowledge that. None the less, the differences between the parties remain at the margin and are sometimes infinitesimal. A politician from one party says, “We’re saying 18.4679% and that’s the right policy. Someone from another party says the figure is 17.237%, but that’s ridiculous”. The public get turned off by these marginal differences, as well as by politicians changing their mind. They keep shifting in their positions and the public become more and more bewildered, shut out and switched off by this very depressing phenomenon.

The talks resumed in the spring of 2012, having collapsed and the suggestions of the independent committee having been rejected by all the party leaders. I thought that the essence of setting up that independent Committee on Standards in Public Life was to reach agreement on the suggestions, including a cap on donations. The political parties ended up by shelving the funding reform talks, and by July 2013 there was a complete breakdown in any co-operation at all. Why was that? The original suggestion of a £5,000 limit was then dismissed as donations became larger and larger, and more and more members of parties became Members of the House of Lords—coincidentally, of course; there is no direct connection between the two, because that would be a criminal offence. The Lords now has just under 800 Members, many of them financial contributors. Good luck to them—they are entitled to do that under the present system.

We have to get away from this. My colleague, my noble friend Lord Oakeshott, who has now taken leave of absence, made himself thoroughly unpopular through some of his suggestions and behaviour not only in my party but also generally, and we have not heard from him since. However, he had a point when he suggested that voters could be asked whether they wanted to give £5 to a political party of their choice at the ballot box, and he also wanted to cap political donations at £5,000. That would stop wealthy donors having such power over political parties, and Mr Clegg could, for example, team up with Labour to co-operate on reforms of party funding if the Conservatives were less inclined to agree.

That led to what I believe to be Ed Miliband’s quite substantial reorganisation of unions’ individual funding systems. Members of trade unions now donate on a different basis and are not compulsorily obliged to give money to trade unions against their will. Ed Miliband’s reform in that area, which was quite a major step, did not get the credit in the British papers that it deserved. Again, that was part of this atmosphere, with the party leaders unable to co-operate and work with each other. I am sad to have to say this, but I thought we would get a better quality of politics coming from this thing.

This matter really needs to be dealt with very urgently indeed now. I hope that my noble friend will make some interesting suggestions today, and it will be very important to return to this subject. Presumably, alas, we cannot do it before the general election, for obvious reasons, but we must surely return to it after the election. The British public are really quite fed up with what has been happening and they want a sensible system. It may include some public money, on a limited basis. The total figures of £25 million, £75 million or £100 million are very modest for a five-year Parliament, even if public funding is to be involved, now the economy is recovering and people are feeling more self-confident in that sense.

The other thing is that donations must be capped and the attribution of union membership dues must be on a voluntary basis only. That should be officially registered, recognised and accepted by everybody, and then we will get to a position where we are on a more even keel and we will begin to restore the public’s confidence in our politics. I hope that there will be lots of other measures as well in the manifestos—and good policies of course—and then we will begin to make progress. But the whole of this five years has been wasted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I will accept that. A proportion of the fees that individual members pay is deducted for a political fund which goes to one political party. How conscious or voluntary that is is, of course, part of the dispute.

I have a great deal of personal sympathy for the argument made by several noble Lords in support of gift aid tax relief. That is absolutely part of the way forward and it is one of the issues that quite a few of us, in whatever position we find ourselves after the election, should put straight back on to the agenda. We can then argue about the cap to be set, but again we are facing the problem that so far, the evidence of the number of voters who are sufficiently committed to any political party to want to pay money to it has fallen and we therefore need to increase it yet again. Some of us, and I am one of them, do our best to narrow the gap by entering the EuroMillions lottery each week and promising that we will give a substantial part of our winnings to our political party. Unfortunately only the SNP has benefited from that so far, not the Liberal Democrats or any other party.

I had expected the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to ask me why the Government have not commenced the part of the last Act which deals with the tax status of donors. The answer I was ready to give to him, and which I cannot resist giving to him, is that the tax status of donors is actually not very easy to establish during a current tax year. For example, whether someone is domiciled in Britain or not is not entirely clear until after the end of the tax year. It is also a matter of confidentiality between the taxpayer and HMRC. If we are to have an information data gateway between HMRC and political parties that political parties can access, which might well be part of what we need to do, it will take us a year or two to establish—my notes say a minimum of two years. That, again, is an issue which we may wish to return to after the election. The question of whether or not a company is registered within Britain and carrying out serious activities in Britain is also a very difficult issue.

[Lord Dykes]

Would my noble friend also consider the possibility of imitating the American regulations so that owners of newspapers in Britain have to be based in the United Kingdom and pay UK personal taxes?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the coalition Government have no policy on that, so I had better not comment. I think that that covers all the issues which have been raised. I encourage the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Dykes, to continue to press this. It is an issue to which we will all have to return after the next election.

Chilcot Inquiry

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to expedite the publication of the report by the Chilcot Inquiry.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the inquiry is completely independent of government. However, Sir John Chilcot has said that it is the inquiry’s intention to submit its report to the Prime Minister as soon as possible. I very much hope that its conclusions will shortly be available for all to read.

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

I express sympathy to my noble friend that HMG appear to be at the mercy of pressures from outside to connive in a delay in this report possibly to help Mr Bush and Mr Blair. Will he please come back to the Prime Minister’s exhortation in May that the report should be published by the end of this year at the latest and say when the date will be?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I refute that there is in any sense a conspiracy connected to the former Prime Minister or the former American president. It has taken a good deal longer than was anticipated to clear the many thousands of documents that have been examined and which will be published on the website with a number of redactions. That process is now virtually complete. The Maxwellisation letters, which were sent out as a warning last year, should now be going out and we hope that that process will be completed. As soon as those who are to be criticised in the report have responded, the report will be ready for submission to the Prime Minister.

Chilcot Inquiry

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what date they expect to agree with the Chilcot Inquiry for the publication of the Inquiry report.

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity, through the usual channels, to contribute today in a Question for Short Debate on the disturbing delays that appear to be building up in the publication of the much and long-awaited Chilcot inquiry report. The long-distance background to this goes back to the illegal war in Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent inquiry by Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues. At least one political party in this country—I am proud to say that it was the Liberal Democrat party—marched officially as a party to protest against the war. The estimated million to 1.5 million marchers going along Piccadilly were subsequently all disappointed that the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, completely ignored their representations on the biggest march that had taken place in Britain in recent times.

I pay tribute to the newspapers and the press in Britain who followed this, especially the Guardian. I assure noble Lords that there is no consortation in any way in this respect. It is just another way to thank the Guardian for its relentless pursuit of the hacking scandal in this country. Its pursuit was much more than that of any other newspaper. Sometimes the Independent managed to keep up, for which we are grateful. The way in which the press generally dealt with it was much less thorough than in the Guardian. The same thing has applied on an unrelenting basis to the delays to Chilcot. It is with deliberate intent that I quote mostly from the Guardian.

On 29 October, I put down a Question to the then Leader of the House, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I asked,

“Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the chairman and secretariat of the Iraq Inquiry about possible delays in publication of its report due to responses from officials of the government of the United States”.

I was most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. He said:

“The drafting of the inquiry’s report and the contents are entirely a matter for the inquiry, which is independent of government”.

I made a supplementary point and I said:

“We remember, of course, the many thousands of Iraqi civilians, including women and children, who were killed after this illegal invasion. Will my noble friend the Leader of the House reassure the House that the Government will attach every meticulous attention to the contents of the report when eventually it is published? It is a very long process and the sooner it is published the better, but there is still a considerable delay. The particular implications of eventual submissions to the ICC should also be borne in mind”.

I was most grateful when the Leader of the House added that,

“my noble friend is correct to draw attention to the report. I can confirm the seriousness with which the Government will accept the report. It perhaps is worth pointing out that Sir John Chilcot, the chairman of the inquiry, has advised that the inquiry will be able to submit its report to the Prime Minister once it has given those who may be subject to criticism in the report the opportunity to make representations to the inquiry before the report is finalised”.—[Official Report, 29/10/12; col. 406.]

I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for going into detail on this but that is the very serious background to it.

I fast-forward to 23 November 2013 and, once again, the excellent details in the Guardian, which stated:

“The Chilcot inquiry into the 2003 invasion of Iraq has been locked in dispute with top Whitehall officials over their refusal to release crucial records of conversations between Tony Blair and George W Bush”.

I quote further from the same article:

“Sir John Chilcot and his panel have seen the documents but have been told they cannot disclose them. He has told Cameron that without a decision on what he has described as documents central to the inquiry, he cannot go ahead with the … ‘Maxwellisation’ process”.

The article goes on:

“Blair is one of those most likely to be criticised for his handling of the crisis that led to the Iraq invasion”.

I am delighted to see the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in his place today and I thank him for coming to speak in this debate—as I thank the other speakers. Going back a week to 15 November, again in an article in the Guardian, there was his call—which he gave me permission to mention—to get this report published as soon as possible. The first paragraph of this piece by Richard Norton-Taylor states:

“The former Labour foreign secretary, Lord Owen, has criticised Tony Blair and the coalition over the refusal to release key evidence about what Blair told George Bush in the runup to the invasion of Iraq. Blair's position was an ‘intolerable affront to democratic accountability’, Owen told the Guardian”.

Several paragraphs later, the article states:

“Owen said the whole dispute should be arbitrated by the lord chancellor, who is responsible for the release of official records, rather than any cabinet secretary … ‘Chilcot and his colleagues should stand firm and not be bullied,’ Owen said”.

I was grateful indeed for the noble Lord’s remarks and I look forward with great interest to his further remarks in this debate.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for being here. He is a doughty fighter for justice and morality in politics, in social matters and in the kind of emergency that arose from Iraq. I know he has somewhat different views so I shall be careful not to add any further comments.

I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, for his attendance today. Many of us are fans of his famous programme on BBC Radio 3, “Private Passions”. He will not mind me sounding corny when I say that we in this debate today have a public passion collectively for getting at the truth of the delays to Chilcot. To make matters worse, with all these delays and no proper explanations coming from government circles or anybody else, and allowing for the fact that Cabinet Secretaries are inhibited in anything that they might do or say—that is a serious problem in the public sector, which we have to admit and understand—I and others were quite appalled that last Friday, 27 June, an article in the Guardian said that there is now a further delay in the publication of this report. The main paragraph in that article states:

“Sir John Chilcot announced last month”—

that is, in May, as the article was written at the end of June—

“that after years of heated disputes with successive cabinet secretaries, and discussions with Washington, he had agreed to a settlement whereby summaries, and ‘the gist’, of more than a hundred records of conversations between Blair and George Bush in the runup to the invasion, and of records of 200 cabinet discussions, would be published, but not the documents themselves. Chilcot has described the content of the documents as ‘vital to the public understanding of the inquiry’s conclusions’. In a letter to Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, last month, Chilcot said ‘detailed consideration’ of the information he has requested had begun, adding ‘it is not yet clear how long that will take’”.

With regard to this delay, I think “disgrace” is the right word to use, and I use it sadly. I do not wish to, but I think that is the essence of the matter.

The same article states:

“Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London, said: ‘How painfully ironic that Britain used force in 2003 when it was manifestly illegal, but will … not do so now in response to a request from the government of Iraq, when it would more arguably be lawful’”.

It continues:

“Sands, a close follower of Chilcot and earlier inquiries into the invasion of Iraq, added: ‘The situation in Iraq today is terrible and tragic, but it’s a futile exercise to speculate as to the exact connection with decisions taken in 2003 … It would be more sensible to reflect on what might be learnt from the mistakes of the past.’ He continued”—

I support this question—

“‘Who exactly is responsible for the delay [in the Chilcot report] is unclear, but it is hard to avoid the suspicion that political considerations might have come into play’”.

This House and the whole of this Parliament need information on this. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for attending this debate and replying to us today. I hope that we will have some good answers from him in so far as he can deal with these delicate and sensitive matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I understand fully what the noble Lord says and indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Owen, has said. I stress that this is an independent inquiry that the Government have stood back from, so the Government do not control what is happening in it. However, I entirely understand that when it is published it will be for Parliament, and a number of parliamentary committees, to take on board how much information was given and what the implications are for further information from the agencies and other aspects of government. That will be part of the follow-on to publication.

[Lord Dykes]

The noble Baroness was rightly concerned about the delay in Maxwellisation. My noble friend has just said that there is now a further delay in the letters going out. That seems to be excessive, bearing in mind all the delays that there have been so far. Could he explain to the House why there is this further delay?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The Maxwellisation process, in which those who are named in various aspects of the report are given a chance to look at those areas where they are named, depends of course on the prior decision being complete about exactly what will be used in the report. The most sensitive areas will be those that involve the minutes of Cabinet meetings and discussions with the United States. That is why you cannot go on to the Maxwellisation process until you have finalised the question of how far you are able to publish. I reassure noble Lords that my understanding is that the inquiry is trying extremely hard to publish as much as possible. This is an unprecedented expansion, lifting the traditional veil of secrecy that has covered Cabinet meetings and other such things in the past.

A number of noble Lords raised other questions. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that it was a historic mistake not to have a Suez inquiry. I would say that his remarks on the Cabinet Secretary were ungenerous. The Cabinet Secretary who was originally put in this position was of course the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell; it was the institution of Cabinet Secretary, not the person, and “the Cabinet Secretary” includes those who assist him in the Cabinet Office. From my limited interactions with them, I have to say that they are a first-class team; it is not simply one individual.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, talked about rumours that he has heard in Washington. We have all heard many rumours in Washington. Since I am not privy to what is in the inquiry at present, I cannot comment on them; no doubt that will come out when the report is published.

House of Lords: Labour Peers’ Working Group Report

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

My Lords, I was very glad to see on the speakers list that I was following the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I shall embarrass him deliberately by saying that he could be relied on to make a most riveting speech going to the very kernel of the dilemma that we face concerning the future of the House of Lords. Therefore, I am very grateful to him for that. I hope that he will not mind my saying that I have long been a fan of his, and I was confirmed in that yet again when he made some very tough suggestions today. Your Lordships should pay attention to a lot of them.

How proud I was, like everybody else, that in this country we do not have a written constitution. We thought that we were totally unlike all the others with their foolish written constitutions. What a mistake. We have our excellent system of—I was going to say “checks and balances” but I am not sure about that now. Governments—post-war, too—have increasingly ruled without a genuine majority vote from the public, shutting out all alternative legislation, and driving unpopular and badly drafted legislation like a coach and horses through the whole system. Thank goodness that there was a still unelected House of Lords to act as the revising Chamber, doing its best to make sure that some of the very badly drafted Bills coming increasingly from the Administration in the other place were improved—at least, at the margin—with some amendments occasionally being accepted by the Executive.

However, this is still all very amateurish and limited. I am grateful for the many excellent suggestions in the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and her team for further improvements following the Steel Bill, as well as other suggestions about modernising some aspects of the House of Lords. That is all very important.

As well as being proud of there being no written constitution, I was also very keen on the idea of an elected House of Lords. Democracy in action—what a good idea. However, the more I have thought about it, the more I have changed my mind on both those things. This country suffers severely from not having a written constitution. A current complication is the Scottish referendum, but that has to be dealt with.

I am sorry; I have hay fever and therefore my throat is rather bad today. Perhaps one of the doorkeepers will very kindly bring me a glass of water because my voice is getting into a bad state. I apologise; I thought that it would be all right. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Northover for bringing me some water.

[Lord Smith of Clifton (LD)]

A written constitution would deal with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dykes]

As always, I am very grateful for the excellent suggestion from my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton.

This is a moment of truth for us. The party systems are not functioning in the House of Commons. There is no agreement on party funding. Why not? Why is it taking so long? The party leaders overreacted on the expenses scandal. Only a small number of MPs were involved, yet the party leaders said that the whole House of Commons was at fault in some way—or the press did on their behalf. The House of Lords is a much more sedate, gentle and dignified Chamber than the House of Commons, which we and the public like. But it does not have the necessary powers to keep the Executive in check once badly drafted Bills have come from the Commons. That is the kernel of the matter.

I have changed my mind too on an elected House of Lords. The House of Lords should not be elected, which I have said repeatedly in the past three or four years as I think more about it. I, like some other Liberal Democrat Peers, strongly opposed the Clegg Bill saying that we should be elected because of the absence of any definition of the powers and the relationship between the two Chambers. I live in France as well, where the relationship between the Senate and the National Assembly is set out in the Fifth Republic constitution. The Senate has considerable power and authority, and a proper salary and expenses, which is another reason why I am no longer in favour of an elected House of Lords. I hope that the senators, as I suppose they will be, will not be wearing robes. I agree very strongly with that recommendation and I disagree with the right reverend Prelate, who has left his place, that robes are important. They are for individual officeholders but not for the collectivity. Therefore, the way in which this is dealt with in the future is crucial.

Senators of an elected House of Lords presumably would be elected with some kind of regional multi-member constituency—probably STV, which is the best internal voting system for parties, as well as for members of the public, in a country such as Ireland. Once that is done, those senators would not only demand proper office expenses for their team and their advisers. Quite understandably, men and women would want a proper salary—and I hope that there will be more women in the future. They would then inevitably challenge the power of the Commons because they would be approached by members of the public who will say, “You must really increase your activity now that you are paid a salary. You are a senator elected democratically by a swathe of people in a multi-member constituency. It is your job as a senator to answer the wishes of the people as well as deal with the healthy revision of the legislation that comes from the Commons”. They also would launch new legislation because the powers would be shifted completely. That is the reality of it and has to be accepted. Therefore, if we do not want that, the Lords should remain unelected. However, there are many additional aspects of modernisation that this Chamber could do which would score well.

Despite the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, nobly gave me a glass of water, I hope that she, as the Whip on duty today, will not be offended if I say that I thought that it was quite right in debates in this place for people to rise and intervene on someone’s point, otherwise it would be just like a conference with people reading out written speeches all through the debate. It would be like a conference on machine tools manufacture in Central Hall Westminster or something like that. In a genuine debate, everyone has the right to intervene—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am very interested in what the noble Lord said about the group of Lib Dem Peers. I am constantly puzzled by why the Deputy Prime Minister refused to engage on the issue of powers. Can the noble Lord throw any light on that?

[Lord Dykes]

My natural sense of modesty, and because it is above my pay grade, prevents me from trying even to give a putative answer to that matter. It was just the way in which things are rushed into with badly drafted, inadequate and mediocre legislation in the House of Commons. More and more is churned out which has to be repaired two or three years later by another set of Bills to rectify the mistakes. That was in the early days of the Deputy Prime Minister being in the House of Commons for one term.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Is not that because the Deputy Prime Minister has never studied the British constitution?

[Lord Dykes]

It is for others to give their views. I am a great admirer of the Deputy Prime Minister but in this case he was just at the beginning of a learning curve. All that will come out again in the wash. This country takes a long time to make fundamental decisions about its modernisation. Irrespective of what happens in Scotland, which is a great complication, the sooner we have a written constitution and agree to be a modern, powerful, well paid, revising, unelected—that being my preference because if it is elected that would change matters completely—institution, the sooner it will have more powers, otherwise we will drift along with an inadequate system of which we are artificially proud for some bizarre, historical reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

That is an option, absolutely. It is possible to look at a unicameral option. I was in favour of that. When I was in the other place, I voted for abolition. We have heard about the examples of New Zealand and Israel, and all the Scandinavian countries operate unicameral systems. My only doubt is because of what has happened in Scotland. In Scotland, there is one Chamber which is controlled by one party, which is controlled by one man who decides who the Presiding Officer should be and who members of the committees should be. The committees do what they are told and they do not challenge the Parliament or the Executive. There is no House of Lairds to question, challenge or revise. I am beginning to doubt unicameralism because of that. I have made the main point about the future.

[Lord Dykes]

If the Commons were on its own, you could not have timetabling of Bills either.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

That is a very good point.

Having made my main point, I am glad that I abandoned what I was going to say but I want to make one or two quick points about the immediate changes. I completely agree with getting rid of the robes. I constantly get this. Some people actually believe that we are sitting here day by day wearing ermine. That is what they tweet about me—that I am sitting here in ermine. Anyone who watches regularly can see that I am not.

I agree with the provisions relating to hereditary Peers and agree, of course, with the idea of working Peers. We saw in the Senate in Paris that they are properly paid and resourced. When we do have an efficient second Chamber, that is one of the things that the Government and the taxpayer will have to take account of.

I also do not understand why we have a State Opening every year. We have one Parliament, and a Government are elected for that one Parliament. Why do we not just have one State Opening at the beginning of the Parliament? Why do we need all this carryover and flummery every year? One Parliament is elected, so let us have the one State Opening and get on with it. I am getting some nods, which is very encouraging.

Reform of the House of Lords is overdue. Sitting here, I can get up and say things—I am doing that now—but I do not really have a mandate or authority. I do not have the legitimacy that I had during 26 years in the other place. Reform is long overdue, but I say to and plead with people such as the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, who I greatly admire, not to think that the only option is direct election. There are other ways in which we can give legitimacy to this second Chamber.

EU: Balance of Competences Review

Lord Dykes Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will next hold discussions with the Council of Ministers and the European Commission on the current United Kingdom review of European Union competences.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe recently briefed the September General Affairs Council of the European Union on the balance of competences review. This is but one example of the regular conversations that we are having with our European partners and the Commission as the review progresses. Lead departments also regularly engage with the institutions and their foreign counterparts during the consultation period for reports. Ministers will continue to raise the findings from each semester with EU partners and institutions.

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. No doubt he would agree that emotional fans of the review of competences were few and far between, but even they would agree with the excellent results of the last EU summit at the end of October and the firm and detailed agreement reached by President Barroso and the Council of Ministers on a secure reform agenda for the future, which has also helped to anchor the United Kingdom membership into the Union even more strongly.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am pleased to hear my noble friend echoing the speech that the Prime Minister made to the CBI only yesterday. The balance of competences review is only one of the things that the coalition Government are undertaking on European issues. It is intended to be an evidence- based review, and we have so far had well over 1,000 contributions to the reports published and under consideration.