House of Lords: Size

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Higgins

Monday 5th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, I join all those who have paid tribute to my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Norton and the work that the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber has been doing and continues to do. They have set out the parameters within which reform ought to operate; in effect, a manifesto for further incremental change and reform, which to some extent has already been carried through over a number of years.

There seems general agreement that your Lordships’ House is presently too large. This does not result simply in public concern, and to some extent, perhaps, disdain; it has very real problems in terms of costs, the resources available to Members, and so on. One point that has not been made but which is very important is that it also tends to result in a limitation on the length of speeches. The effect of this is that it is virtually impossible to take an intervention. We are not a lecture theatre, we are a debating Chamber and therefore this is a considerable disadvantage.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord has just said.

[Lord Higgins]

I am most grateful. The noble Lord and I are not always in agreement so it is a happy coincidence that it should be so at this moment.

The situation with regard to reducing the size of the House changed quite radically once the law and the set-up were changed so that Members could retire. As has been pointed out, a considerable number have already retired. However, this is a pointless exercise if, the moment there is a reduction, the Prime Minister goes on filling in with new Members. Almost everyone is agreed on that. The royal prerogative has been heavily criticised in this respect. It is interesting to note that it is not only in this Chamber that the royal prerogative has been challenged today; it is being challenged on the other side of Parliament Square as well. Perhaps we ought to look at this really rather fundamental thing.

Part of the problem, as has also been pointed out, is that the creation of a peerage is both an honour—which of course it is—and a job. We need to distinguish between the two. What has emerged rather clearly is that we are short of a different honour. Perhaps it should be rather the same as it is for those who have retired from this House—an honour could be created which gave people that sort of facility within the Palace of Westminster. The confusion of the two roles which we in this House have is certainly very damaging.

I want to refer to something that I think was mentioned only briefly by my noble friend Lord Goodlad. We have a sudden development at the other end of the Building with regard to the House of Lords. I have always rather understood that we at this end do not interfere in their affairs and they do not interfere in ours. Then suddenly the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place, chaired by Mr Bernard Jenkin, is apparently looking at the very issue we are debating. I view this with mixed feelings because one could say, “If they’re going to do that, we ought to have a committee looking into why the House of Commons introduced programming so that legislation arrives here not properly debated, and why they have abandoned their primary role of legislating”. We need to look at this rather carefully but they may come up with some useful ideas. If so, they will certainly have to take lots of evidence.

I am sure that if we carried out a survey of the membership of that committee at the other end, the number who have ever appeared at the Bar of this House during Question Time would be very small, and still fewer would have stood there through a debate to have some idea of what we are doing. I hope that if they carry out this inquiry, they will jolly well come and find out what it is all about. They will be surprised, as indeed the public at large would be, at the valuable work that we in this House do in improving legislation which, if it has been debated at all, has not been scrutinised as it used to be in previous years.

I must conclude. This debate has been extremely useful and we must carry it further. We have not been dealing with any of the detail and perhaps we should have a further debate after Christmas so that we can set out rather more clearly what the Select Committee should look at. That would give it some form of overall guidance as to what would be appropriate. None the less, we are making progress on this and, if we are to do our job properly, it is very important that further progress should be made.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Higgins

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, whether or not any undertaking has been given up to now, it is painfully obvious that we ought not to proceed with Report given that we have had no debate at all on the financial framework in Committee under Committee conditions. It would be quite wrong for us to go all the way through the Bill when we are not able to have adequate discussion. Indeed, the Statement we heard this afternoon said there would be adequate discussion. My noble friend need not reply to this now, but I suggest to him that we really ought to have, in the course of this evening’s debate, a clear statement from the Front Bench that the proceedings on the latter part of Bill will be such that we can debate it fully.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

This is duplicity by the Government, and it really needs to be sorted out. I have been sitting quietly saying almost nothing—

Liaison Committee

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Higgins

Thursday 12th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Liaison Committee and those who have been involved in the negotiations on ensuring that in future Treasury officials and Ministers will appear in front of the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House. Until now, that has not been the case, with the one exception of an economic committee. It is plainly wrong that Ministers and officials should not have appeared before your Lordships’ committee on matters in which the Treasury is clearly involved. Therefore, ensuring that in future we will have the benefit of evidence from Treasury officials and Ministers is a considerable step forward.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Liaison Committee’s report, even though the committee did not choose any of the six recommendations that I put forward as topics. However, I shall try again next year.

I ask for an assurance from the Chairman of Committees that these ad hoc committees, and indeed all Select Committees, will be adequately resourced—that they get the staff to service them, that they are able to appoint specialist advisers, and that they are able to go from place to place to take evidence and, if necessary, to travel overseas. I served on the ad hoc committee on soft power, ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. However, I felt that we were constantly constrained in our ability to carry out our work. In this House, unlimited funds seem to be made available for works around the House. I understand that those works are necessary but somehow the money seems to be found for ceremonies and all those kinds of things. But when it comes to the essential work and the reason we are here—to scrutinise legislation and to look at different topics—the money gets squeezed. We keep getting messages saying, “No, you can’t do this; no, you can’t do that”. There is no point in having these Select Committees unless they are properly and adequately resourced. I hope that the Chairman of Committees will give us that assurance.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Higgins

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, I think that is correct. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, should now move Amendment 33.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, there is a problem here. I am ready to move Amendment 40, but no explanation has been given to my noble friends Lord Anderson and Lord Wigley on why their amendments have been pre-empted. With respect, either the Chairman, the Clerk, the Government or the mover of the Motion—there is an option; all four of them—should let the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Wigley, know why their amendments have been pre-empted. If they have, I am ready to move Amendment 40. If they have not, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is ready to move Amendment 33.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, the point, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is this: he is seeking to amend a part of the Bill which no longer exists. With great respect, I do not think he can do that.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

All I said earlier, with respect, was that I was ready to move Amendment 40, but if the Whip wants to move the adjournment, I shall give way to him. I see that he is indicating dissent, so we have 35 minutes left.

Amendments 40, 41 and 47, and Amendment 49, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Quin, are all grouped. Again to be as helpful as possible to the House, I shall deal with all of them together. Amendment 40 states:

“If the turnout for the referendum is less than 25 per cent”—

all these amendments deal with the legitimacy of the referendum—

“the referendum shall be considered invalid”.

Where one sets the percentage is open for discussion, but I should have thought that there is no doubt whatever that if the turnout is less than 25% the referendum should be invalid.

Amendment 41 is somewhat different, in that it sets a higher threshold in two ways. It states that the Secretary of State shall,

“lay before Parliament the draft of an order for the repeal of this Act”,

if two conditions are not met—if less than half the votes have been yes, or if the turnout is less than 40% of those registered to vote. A similar provision was included in the first Scottish referendum through an amendment proposed by the then Member of Parliament, George Cunningham, known as the Cunningham amendment. So there are two thresholds in order for the referendum to be successful. First, it has to get half plus one of those who vote—that is obvious—and the other is that 40% of those eligible to vote, those people on the register, would have to have voted. If the referendum does not pass both thresholds, it should not pass.

The third amendment in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Wigley, deals with each part of the United Kingdom, and states:

“The referendum may not result”—

in other words, it will not be legitimate or take effect—

“unless there is … a simple majority and”,

again,

“40 per cent of those registered to vote in every component part of the United Kingdom in which the count is taken separately”.

I have a later amendment that states that the count should be held separately in each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Let me put the reasoning behind those requirements in turn. The result of any referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU must, in order to maintain legitimacy, have the backing of all four nations of the United Kingdom, not just the United Kingdom as a whole. Given the momentous nature of such a referendum, I fear that national discrepancies in outlook may cast doubt on the final outcome. I therefore believe that an issue of such importance deserves the legitimacy bestowed upon it by the requirement of national electoral consensus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

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

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

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

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, I am rather heartened by the exchanges we have had in the past few minutes. I sat through the whole of the Second Reading debate. I did not take part because it seemed that everyone would say everything that needed to be said—a great many times over. Strangely enough, as far as I can recall, and I was here for almost the entire proceedings, no one raised this issue, which is the most important amendment on the Marshalled List.

Throughout my 33 years in the other place, I always told my constituents very strongly that I supported the view of Edmund Burke that Members of Parliament were representatives not delegates. I explained that, often at great length. Whether this explains why my majority over the period fell from 32,500 to less than 18,000, I am not sure. But I believe they accepted that even if I had had a machine that would tell me exactly the opinion in my constituency, I would not feel it right or necessary to take that as decisive. I strongly believed that one would take the views of one’s constituents into account every Friday evening and by correspondence and so on, but at the end of the day a Member of Parliament has to take into account all the other representations he has received, all the research he has done and so on, and make up his mind on the basis of that.

I have always been totally opposed to the idea of a referendum that was mandatory. I used to be totally opposed to referendums in all shapes or forms. I have come round slightly from that view, but I certainly maintain the view that I have just expressed. It would be appalling for us to agree with a referendum which would then impose on the House of Commons a particular decision where it had not been able to take the action that I believe is a fundamental feature of our democratic system in this country.

I very much welcome the noble Lord’s amendment. It is important that it is made clear. I equally welcome my noble friend the proposer of the Bill’s view that it is anyway covered by convention. But I entirely agree with those who have said that it needs to be in the Bill. Therefore, I hope very much that my noble friend whose Bill it is, in responding to this debate, will make it absolutely clear that he accepts this amendment, and then we will know where we stand; otherwise, there is a grave danger that there will be uncertainty about this, which will cause great confusion in the future.