Arrangement of Business

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

I thank the Lord Speaker. As he rightly said, from today Oral Questions will no longer have a speakers’ list. I will briefly set out on behalf of the usual channels how Question Time will work.

With no lists there will be no agreed speaking order, so supplementary questions will rotate around the parties and groups in the Chamber. Those noble Lords who are permitted to take part virtually may do so in Questions provided that they give notice. Like Members in the Chamber, they are not guaranteed a chance to speak; whether they are invited to do so will be agreed in advance with their parties and groups. During Questions, at an appropriate point I will indicate that the House will hear virtually from a Peer belonging to the party or group whose turn it is.

As noble Lords observed in last week’s debate, the spontaneity of Question Time plays an important part in the House holding Ministers to account. However, some Peers have said that they did not feel as comfortable joining in with Questions. Therefore, as the Senior Deputy Speaker observed, it will be incumbent on all Members to respect the House’s tradition of self-regulation, mutual respect and courtesy. As part of that tradition, it is important that during Question Time the House hears a range of views and from as many Members as possible in the time allowed. Rather than return to the previous seven minutes for each Question, we are now allowing 10 minutes. That should mean that at least 10 supplementary questions can be asked and answered, which I hope will ensure that the House can hear from Members on all sides of any issue.

As noble Lords are aware, the Companion sets out that Ministers’ initial replies should be brief and no more than 75 words and that subsequent replies should also be concise. The Companion also states:

“Supplementary questions should be short and confined to not more than two points.”


It goes on to say that supplementaries should be

“confined to the subject of the original question, and ministers should not answer irrelevant questions. The essential purpose of supplementaries is to elicit information, and they should not incorporate statements of opinion. They should not be read.”

In brief, that means that all supplementaries should take about 30 seconds and ministerial replies should be correspondingly short. I hope that noble Lords will observe these courtesies to ensure that Question Time works for the whole House.

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

I wonder whether we can ask a question. Why can we not ask a question?

Health and Social Care

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am afraid I will have to get back to the noble Baroness on that.

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

My Lords, under cover of this announcement, the Government broke another manifesto promise by abandoning the triple lock on pensions. With the costs of energy and food projected to rise substantially, how are pensioners who depend on the basic pension going to survive?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am sure the noble Lord will understand that, given the statistical anomaly that has led to average wage growth being 8%, it is just not fair to raise pensions by this figure. For one year only we are moving to a double lock and increasing pensions by the higher of inflation or 2.5%. We will then return to the triple lock. Since the triple lock was put in place in 2011, the state pension has increased by 3% a year; it is now at its highest level relative to earnings for 34 years. The number of pensioners in absolute poverty has fallen by more than 200,000 in the last decade. I do not dispute that this will impact some people, but I think that, for one year, in the light of everything the country has gone through, it is fair and people will agree with it.

Business of the House

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, I do not know whether this is the appropriate time to ask, but I will do so nevertheless. I know that the Government Chief Whip, with his usual courtesy, will be able to answer.

We all recognise the importance of getting these measures through as quickly as possible. We realise that this will have an effect on the way this House operates; no doubt the noble Lord will speak to us about that at some point. He will be aware that there is some concern about the way in which the House is dealing with the Committee and Report stages of Bills and the inability of Members who are present to intervene and to participate fully.

The Procedure Committee should look at this. It would be possible for a change in the rules of procedure to give the people present the right to intervene, whereas those not present would have to accept that it would be impossible, technically, for them to intervene. This would make Committee and Report stages much more useful and meaningful for all sides of the House.

This could be done without any difficulties as far as public health is concerned. It would not affect public health measures in any way, but it would greatly improve the way in which this House carries out its functions to scrutinise legislation—which, as the Chief Whip knows, is one of the most important matters this House deals with.

When I have sat in on Committees, I have heard a number of Members on all sides of the House ask about this. I wonder whether the Chief Whip, the usual channels and the Procedure Committee could have a look at this and see whether something could be done about it.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, obviously I am aware of the point the noble Lord has raised; it is something the Procedure Committee has looked at before. Although there are technical difficulties, I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to come up with some kind of solution.

The regulations we are debating today, although they do not directly affect this, do affect the arrangements of this House going forward. It is unlikely that we will change the procedures. Obviously, it is not my decision—ultimately it is a decision of the House—but this will be discussed at the Procedure Committee. We are going to look at when we might be able to return to a more normal, physical House—subject to social distancing and health advice, of course. Obviously, all of that has to be taken into consideration. The current likelihood is that we will continue with our current arrangements, or thereabouts, until the Summer Recess—but that is not a guaranteed position. It has to be decided, but in my opinion that is likely.

It is acknowledged that most Members on all sides of the House take seriously the intervention stages—the amending stages—of legislation. I will report to the Senior Deputy Speaker what the noble Lord has said. When we have a meeting, we may be able to discuss that, but it is unlikely to change before we come back in September.

Business of the House

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

Does anyone else wish to speak?

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

My Lords, I participated in a debate in the other House when Parliament was recalled when the Falkland Islands were invaded. However, since I came into Parliament in 1979, through the Falklands and through the resignations of Prime Ministers and all sorts of other crises, I have never known such chaos as we have at the moment. The chaos is not because of the epidemic—in fact, this House has dealt with the Covid epidemic very well and is operating very well, and I pay tribute to all involved—but is the man-made chaos of Brexit. It really is astonishing that we are dealing with this. I endorse everything that my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon said. It is astonishing that this House, and this Parliament, are dealing with it in this way.

Nevertheless, I take this opportunity of wishing everyone, and particularly the Leader of the House—because she does deserve it—a very merry Christmas.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

Does anyone else wish to speak? No. I call the Lord Privy Seal.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 13th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I start by recognising that there is of course room for more than one perspective and view on this matter, particularly against the background of the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about which we have just heard.

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

As a great friend of the Companion, would the noble Lord like to declare his interest under section 11(b) of the Members’ Code of Conduct? Irrespective of what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said about his possible demise, there is a much wider interest.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am not aware of the interest that the noble Lord wishes me to declare, but I have been here a long time. That said, the problem which the Bill addresses relates to the number of Members in the House, which the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has been working on. On a single day back in 1999, 700 hereditary Peers had to leave the House. Since then, their numbers have remained firmly fixed. Meanwhile, the number of life Peers has significantly increased.

Be that as it may, the essence of the case against this Bill relates to the undertaking given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, then the Lord Chancellor, who gave a clear undertaking that the position of the 92 hereditary Peers provided for in the 1999 Act would remain untouched until, in his words, House of Lords reform was complete. No time limit was given to that undertaking. In 2012, as we have already heard, the coalition Government introduced in the other place a comprehensive House of Lords reform Bill creating a mostly elected House of Lords, which sadly never emerged. I would not have opposed that Bill in principle, although there were a few questions relating, for example, to the number of Bishops who ought to remain.

I have referred to the present number of life Peers. I would not in principle oppose legislation as described by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, to provide for a statutory independent committee to select new life Peers rather than leaving it in the hands of the Prime Minister as at present. I could of course be persuaded that the hereditary Peers should then leave. In the meantime, I believe that the present arrangement should remain in place and I therefore hope that this Bill will not reach the statute book.

On one detailed point, the Bill as now proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, does not include provision for the two statutory hereditary Peers, namely the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Earl Marshal, to which he has previously agreed, as I recall. I hope that that can be corrected if the Bill is to proceed.

I remain opposed to piecemeal reform and therefore to this Bill. I hope that comprehensive reform can come to the House in due course, which I shall not oppose. In the meantime, let us leave the hereditary Peers as they are.

House of Lords: Future Location

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration is being given to relocating the House of Lords out of London.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the Conservative Party manifesto committed to looking at the role of the House of Lords and to reviewing the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts in a constitution, democracy and rights commission. The Government have not yet decided what will be in the scope of the commission and whether it will include the role of the House of Lords but we will make an announcement in due course.

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

My Lords, that does not answer the Question. Can the Minister confirm the reports that No. 10 has said that this is a serious proposal? No. 10 also says that it is one of a range of options being considered. What are the options? Will the Minister outline them? Do they include moving both Houses, which I would prefer, and how does he reconcile all this with the billions now being spent on the restoration and renewal programme of this building?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I know the noble Lord to be a powerful advocate for the idea referred to in his Question. On the one hand, it is the case that some years ago, the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster looked at the option of Parliament moving outside of London and decided against it, principally on grounds of cost and the absence of proximity between Parliament and government. On the other hand, there is no reason why these matters should not receive renewed scrutiny and, as I have said, the options are being looked at.

Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission: Civil Society

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I wish that I could help the noble Lord, but it is simply too soon for me to be able to comment on that. As we heard in the debate in your Lordships’ House last Wednesday, the subject matter under the umbrella heading of the constitution is potentially very broad, so decisions are needed on exactly how broad the commission’s remit should sensibly be.

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

My Lords, since the remit is still unsure and has not yet been decided, will the Minister ask for the consideration of a federal constitution for the United Kingdom to be included in the remit, before we see the breakup and the removal of Scotland and Northern Ireland, which is imminent unless we have some kind of federal constitution?

[Earl Howe]

I will make sure that the noble Lord’s point is duly noted.

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament: Special Report

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord in several respects. The length of time for which this report has been with the Government is not at all unusual. It is one of a number of ISC reports which the Government are currently considering. In this instance, the Government are following the standard process which applies before every publication. A memorandum of understanding with the committee sets out the relationship between it and the Government. This does not include a timetable for the Government to clear such a report for publication and there is no set timeline for a response. Nor is such a deadline set in governing legislation.

Having said all that, I realise that the subject of this report is a matter of particular public interest and have no doubt that noble Lords’ comments will not be lost on those in No. 10.

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

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that MI5, SIS and GCHQ are all willing for the report to be published?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I simply cannot comment on those matters—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Why not?

[Earl Howe]

In due course, the Government will release the report for publication, but the processes must be gone through first.

Update to Parliament

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, has the Leader of the House come to the conclusion that the nature and tenor of this Statement confirm that the prorogation was indeed a political act, and that that is why there was no sworn statement to the court? I have great respect, personally, for the Leader of the House. Indeed, I would go so far as to say I have an affection for the Leader of the House. She has been particularly kind to me recently. She attended as one of the three privy counsellors, and she misled Her Majesty the Queen. She has said quite clearly, and I accept it, that she did it in all good faith: she was herself misled before she went to see the Queen at that Privy Council meeting. I am not going to say that she should consider her position at this point, but is she not going to find it increasingly difficult to come to this House, where as Leader she represents the whole House, and repeat the kind of Statement we have just heard from this discredited Prime Minister?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The reaction of the noble Lord, and this House, to the Statement have been quite clear. There is not much I can say: I am repeating the Statement, but I have heard what the House feels about it. All I can say to the noble Lord is that I continue to try to be—I am—the voice of the House of Lords in Cabinet. I speak for this House, I put forward the representations of this House and I am very happy to put forward the representations I have heard in the Chamber today. I thank him for his kind words. As I mentioned to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, the court did not say that the Prime Minister should have given evidence, and my understanding is that it would have been unprecedented for him to do so.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to announce a date for the next Queen’s Speech.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have announced that the next Queen’s Speech will be on 14 October.

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

It was a prescient Question, was it not?

Will the noble Earl, who is known for his integrity and honesty, confirm that Parliament normally goes into recess for party conferences, so that committees can sit and Questions can be tabled, and that Prorogation is normally prior to a Queen’s Speech and usually less than a week? So a Prorogation of five weeks, with no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive, is both unprecedented and unconstitutional.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am a little surprised by the position taken by the noble Lord, in view of his previous call for a new Session. He was quite insistent on that point earlier in the year. However, it is impossible for me to be unaware that there are differences of view on these matters, and I have no desire to raise the temperature of the water in any way. However, the number of sitting days lost as a result of the Prorogation is only a handful. The important question surely is whether Parliament will have sufficient time after 14 October to express its view on a revised Brexit deal, if we achieve one, or on the preparations for no deal if we do not—and the Government are absolutely clear that sufficient time is available.