Palace of Westminster Committee

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Richard

Thursday 9th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the House would feel that it is terribly important that there should be equality of representation on this committee between both Houses. That is true not only in terms of the number of people who are involved on both sides but in the offices that some of them will represent. I have heard it said that the Chairman of Committees will not be represented in the Lords representation on this Joint Committee. As I understand it, he performs in this House functions similar to those performed by an official in the other place who will be on the committee. In those circumstances, there seems to be a disparity between the representation of the two Houses. If that is so, will the Leader of the House undertake to make sure that something is done about it?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a matter of major importance and of potentially huge public expenditure. As far as I can recall, we have not had the opportunity of debating it in this House yet. I went to a presentation in Portcullis House, as did some other Members, organised by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons. I must say that I found it totally inadequate: there were questions that could not be answered and the presentation was not clear. We need more information about exactly what options are being proposed.

I ask three things from the Leader of the House. First, to repeat the point made by my noble friend, representation should be equal between this House and the other place. A decision was made about the education centre, which has major implications for us, but we were not able to play any part in it—it was made by the House of Commons and forced upon us, yet the centre is effectively just outside our back door and will have a huge effect on us. Can we have an assurance that we will have equal representation on the committee?

Secondly, can we get an assurance that before any decision is taken that will affect expenditure and the workings of this House there will be a full debate in this House, and that no decision will be made without such a debate? Thirdly, I ask the noble Baroness to make it clear that the Joint Committee will consider all the options for dealing with this matter, not just those that have been put forward so far as a preferred option or preferred options. All of them should be looked at properly and thoroughly by the committee. This is a matter of great importance, and I find it very strange that it was almost put through on the nod.

House of Lords

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Richard

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Williams on raising this issue. It is one that we have skirted around many times in this House for a very long time—I still bear the stripes of past debates on this subject; no doubt there will be others to come—without facing up to it.

The chief attraction of what my noble friend Lord Williams had to say is that it can be done without primary legislation. I am in favour of an elected second Chamber and have been for a very long time, as the House probably knows. I do not resile from that position one scrap. Indeed, if some of the noises that are being made by the leadership of my party in favour of an elected second Chamber based on strong regional connections were to come about, I would welcome it with open arms and be delighted to support it.

We are not currently faced with that issue, however, but with a problem that has arisen from the way that the size of the House has grown. One can set out the issues very simply in a number of questions: is there a problem with the size of the House? The answer to that is clearly yes. It is too big for the work that it does. We do not need 800 people to do work that 400 or 450 are perfectly capable of doing. Is the problem going to go on unless it is resolved? The answer to that is clearly yes. Is the problem going to get worse? The answer to that is clearly yes.

I echo and totally agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his somewhat apocalyptic view as to what will happen after the next general election. An incoming Government are bound to want to rebalance the House of Lords. It is asking too much of any Prime Minister to say that he would be prepared to leave the House of Lords unbalanced, particularly if the number of Liberal Members of Parliament declines and there are more than 100 Liberal Democrats sitting on the Benches of the House of Lords. That is not something that any Government will view with equanimity or pleasure. He will want to do something about it. After all, this is a legislative Chamber. We are generally here not to advise the Government, but to pass laws, in which case the Government have to get their business through this House as well as through the House of Commons. To do that, any Government will want the House of Lords broadly to represent the political situation in the country at the time, and therefore I think that the problem will get worse rather than better.

What can we do about it? It seems to me that there are basically three alternatives. One is an age limit, which the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, and various other people have proposed. Secondly, people can be persuaded to go, presumably through a scheme of voluntary retirement, the outlines of which at least are on the statute book. That, coupled with some sort of financial inducement, might produce a mad rush out of this Chamber on the part of many of our colleagues, although personally I rather doubt that. Thirdly, the numbers can be reduced based on the service that people have given.

I understand the superficial attraction of an age limit—it is a simple way of dealing with the matter. However, it is brutal and blunt. It might be fair but I am not sure that it would be effective. A system based on an appreciation of what people do in this House, how often they appear and how often they participate in the affairs of the House would be a much more sensible way of approaching any sort of scheme for a reduction in numbers.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

I wonder whether my noble friend will give way. He mentioned the Liberal Democrat Peers. Would he care to speculate on why no Liberal Democrat Peer is going to speak in this debate? Why are they keeping their heads down today?

[Lord Richard]

If I were a Liberal Democrat, I would keep my head so low as to be totally invisible. My noble friend has answered his own question. I am now a bit lost as to where I was.

High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Richard

Thursday 8th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to speak before the House moves to a vote on this. The noble Baroness is moving a highly complicated Motion that deals with three potential situations—one in which a Bill comes up this Session, one in which a Bill comes up next Session and one in which a Bill comes up after the next general election. In those circumstances, I think the noble Baroness owes it to the House to explain a little further the rationale for the three propositions.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, I also wish to take part in a debate on this. The Clerk of the Parliaments very kindly confirmed to me in an e-mail that this is a debatable Motion and therefore, we can discuss it. We are not discussing today the merits or demerits of HS2, of which I am in favour, as it happens. But this is a procedural Motion. When I saw that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, would be moving the Motion I wondered why. That is no disrespect to the noble Baroness who is a very good Minister, but surely this is a procedural Motion which should be dealt with if not by the Leader of the House then certainly by the Chief Whip so that we can have a proper explanation of its implications.

I take part in the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme. I go to schools and talk about what this House does—that we consider and amend legislation, hold the Government to account and debate the issues of the day. I must say that I am beginning to feel a wee bit of a fraud in terms of holding the Government to account when we have just returned from a four-week Easter Recess. Whatever the Leader of the House said earlier, it was much longer. I have never known a four-week Easter Recess, either when I was in the other House or in this House. Then, from next week, we will be off for another three weeks. That does not seem to me to be the way to do things.

Noble Lords may wonder what this has to do with a carry-over Motion. What I want to point out is that this Motion is typical of what the Government are doing in trying to sideline Parliament. Increasingly, they are treating Parliament as a rubber stamp. Noble Lords will see that the heading for this business is:

“Business expected to be brief”.

The Government want to rush it through, yet it is debatable and we can discuss it. As my noble friend Lord Richard just said, it raises issues of particular significance. All carry-over Motions are significant because legislation can be moved from one Session of Parliament to another. But having looked at previous carry-over Motions, as I understand it, this one is unique and of particular significance because it will carry a Bill over not just from one Session of Parliament to another, but from one Parliament to the next. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who understands these issues, is nodding wisely.

I have some questions which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. I warned her yesterday that I would put these questions to her. First, why did she not feel it right to give the House an explanation at the start? Increasingly things are being moved and passed on the nod. Surely, when it is a matter of significance, the Minister should feel obliged to get up and explain why something is being done. It may be that one or two people in the usual channels understand what this is about, but with respect, every Member of the House should be made aware of what is happening.

Secondly, I hope that the Minister will explain why there is such a rush. Why do we need it now? I first saw this when I looked at the future business of the House online at the end of the Easter Recess. Many colleagues have told me that they did not see it until they arrived here on Tuesday, only two days ago. That is not enough time for Members to consider its implications properly. Why the rush? Could this not be held over? Does the Minister really need to push it through today?

The most important question of all is this: what are the implications? It is the question that was put by my noble friend Lord Richard. What kind of precedent will it set? Can this kind of procedure be used for any Bill or just for Bills dealing with infrastructure projects such as HS2?

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Richard

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Richard]

Thank you.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I think that the Lord Speaker asked about Amendment 11. That was taken along with Amendment 1 and we have already debated it.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Richard

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Richard]

Before the noble Lord replies, I wonder if I could ask him one simple question. There are two parties in the coalition: the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative view will be put by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Liberal Democrat view will be put by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Which of them represents the policy of the Government?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, in relation to the point that I raised initially about who should agree to two Statements, now that we have had an excellent explanation by the Leader of the House, I am absolutely certain that this House would agree unanimously and that we look forward to the entertainment later this afternoon.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Richard

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, we have had a brisk debate so far, to put it mildly. I want to try to meet an argument that has been put today by two noble Lords opposite about the question of balance. It says that the Bill basically provides a sensible balance between the position that the European Union is not the most popular institution with the great British electorate and what should be done about it. The question of balance is being raised.

Let us just analyse this for two seconds. It applies to Clauses 3 and 4, to Clause 6 and to the schedule. The basis for the so-called balance is that if certain issues arise, the great British public will be reassured because there will have to be a referendum. That is the whole basis of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 set out which treaty amendments will require a referendum. I see that under Clause 4(1)(a) to (m) a referendum will be required. Quite how would you frame a question for a referendum on, for example under paragraph (d),

“the conferring on the EU of a new competence shared with the member States”.?

Will you ask, “Are you in favour of this new competence shared with the member states, which the Government have already approved and put to Parliament”? Does that make sense? Is that balanced? Of course not; it is a gross distortion of the whole process.

That is Clause 4—the height of the Bill. Go to Clause 6, which is unbelievable as far as balance is concerned. The Bill gets worse as it goes on but I will just deal with Clause 6, which says:

“The decisions to which subsection (1) applies are … a decision under the provision of Article 31(3) … that permits the adoption of qualified majority voting”.

Look at paragraph (c), which refers to,

“a decision under Article 86(1) … involving participation by the United Kingdom in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office”.

That will demand a referendum. What will we ask? Will we say to the British people, “Are you in favour of the United Kingdom’s participation in a European public prosecutor’s office”? Will it be feasible to have a referendum campaign on that? Will people be lined up on each side of that argument, saying “Yes, I am in favour of a public prosecutor’s office” or “No, I am not in favour of a public prosecutor’s office”? Look at the next one.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Will my noble friend give way?

[Lord Richard]

No, not yet. The next paragraph refers to,

“where the United Kingdom has become a participant in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office, a decision under Article 86(4) … to extend the powers of that Office”.

What will you ask in relation to that? Will you say, “We have already decided that we will be a member of the public prosecutor’s office. Are you, the great British public, now in favour of an extension of those powers”? It is fatuous. How could you possibly campaign on that, and how could you possibly respect any result that you got?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My noble friend illustrates the matter brilliantly in relation to the extension of powers of the public prosecutor’s office and the issue that we are now discussing. I ask him to contemplate this referendum taking place if the two sides of the coalition were on different sides of the argument and the dialogue that might occur between Nick Clegg and George Osborne, to take a random example. Would not the dialogue in that case be far more vitriolic even than the dialogue that is taking place at the moment if they were talking about the public prosecutor’s office?

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I can promise my noble friend one thing: if such a referendum were to take place, the turnout would be absolutely minimal. I do not understand how in those circumstances anybody could conceivably rely on that result as providing balance vis-à-vis the argument that the European Community is at the moment unpopular and deserves to become more popular.