Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP: Resignation Letter
Lord Fowler Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I cannot accept the conclusion of the noble Lord. Of course, as the Prime Minister said, we need to learn from these cases
“how to better handle such matters better in future”,
and a credible complaints process needs to have the confidence of Ministers and civil servants alike. Work is under way on that. Ministers and civil servants work together on difficult issues every day and, in the main, very constructively.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, as someone who headed four separate departments, all under Conservative Governments, in my experience overwhelmingly the Civil Service was loyal and gave exceptional advice to the Government. Would it not be better to look at the quality of special advisers, who sometimes exhibit neither of those qualities?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Having worked as an adviser, a Minister and a civil servant, I would say that the constitution has these different parts. Political advisers are important and helpful. In most cases, they work well with the Civil Service.
House of Lords: Appointments
Lord Fowler Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of Friday’s announcement of the appointment of 26 new Peers, whether they plan to review the appointments system for Members of the House of Lords.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the status of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which should continue to play its very important advisory role. Appointments to the House of Lords are a matter for the Prime Minister, and it is for the Prime Minister of the day to advise the sovereign on appointments to the Lords. The list issued on Friday was made by the Prime Minister on the advice of the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, that is a disappointing reply. Does the Minister remember that the all-party committee which I set up when I was Lord Speaker in 2016, under the noble Lord, Lord Burns, proposed a maximum for the House of Lords of 600 Members? The latest list brings the total not to 600 but to 825, with resignation honours still to come. Also, on this occasion, the system has enabled the appointment of a new Peer who had quite falsely attacked a distinguished Member of this House as a paedophile. Surely there is no reason why an individual who made such an untrue allegation should be rewarded by a peerage. Is not the truth that the present appointments system cries out for urgent reform?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I start by making the general point that, given retirements and other departures, some new Members are essential to keep the expertise and outlook of the House of Lords fresh. The Burns report had longer-term proposals to maintain a steady-state size. Those still require further thought and engagement, particularly with the House of Commons, given the constitutional implications. Theresa May’s Administration in 2018 did not sign up to the Burns recommendations, but there is a Conservative manifesto commitment to look at the role of the Lords.
On the other point that my noble friend Lord Fowler raised—if I may still call him my noble friend—the nomination for the appointment of the individual he referred to is a matter for the leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, to answer for. Obviously the HOLAC provides advice on nominations for all life Peers, including those recommended by UK political parties, to ensure the highest standards of propriety. That was applied in the usual way.
Functioning of Government
Lord Fowler Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
I do not agree with the tenor of the remarks of my noble friend. The announcements on Cabinet appointments were made this morning, and the list is available. It is not the case that all who were in office before will be returning to office—some may and some may not; this is a matter for the Prime Minister. But the Cabinet posts have been filled already.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, following up the question of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, surely the transitional process can be quickened up; it is not written in stone that it should last for three months. It must be possible to allow the constituencies to have their say much more quickly—it is very important that they have their say. It is much better to do that than to try to find some substitute figure to come in as an alternative Prime Minister. In any event, we have far too many people playing in this game. Why do we not just quicken up the process?
Lord True (Con)
I think many of us would agree with my noble friend’s sentiments. I have set out the constitutional position which always applies when a Prime Minister resigns—it applied when Mr Cameron went, when Mr Blair went and when Mrs May went. The Prime Minister will continue until a successor is in place. I agree that that should not take too long, and I also agree that the would-be candidates should be examined to some degree. The position in the parliamentary party is a matter for the 1922 Committee, not for me. I believe an announcement will be made shortly. Ditto, as far as the Conservative Party is concerned; I am sure the announcement will be made. In so far as I as an individual have a view, I agree with my noble friend’s sentiments.
Houses of Parliament: Co-location
Lord Fowler Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I was with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, almost up to the end, when he proposed a retirement age for the House of Lords.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My interest is well known.
Seriously, first, I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on the way he proposed the Motion. I also congratulate him on the way that, over the years, he has fought, week by week for a long time and consistently, for the importance of this House. His contribution has been extraordinarily important.
After the Great Fire in 1834, there was year after year of delay before work seriously began on a new House. One reason for the delay was the shoal of alternative proposals that were continually made. We seem to be going down exactly the same path again, leading to exactly the same destination of indecision and delay. We should perhaps remind ourselves that the original official consideration of the renewal and restoration position was in 2014. There has never been any dispute about the action needed to be taken—the faults, the omissions, the appalling electrics in this place; the dispute has all been about how it is to be done, with every known solution put forward, the latest, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, coming from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
It is worth pausing on that because his proposal comes in two parts. The first is to change—“veto” is a better word—a proposition made by independent committee after independent committee that, if there is to be a total decant as changes are made, the House of Lords should find temporary accommodation in what is now the Queen Elizabeth II Centre. Years after the proposal was made and repeated in debate after debate, the current Secretary of State says that he is not content and will not allow it. Why? Well, one reason is that he has a commercial interest. That small section of the vast Environment department makes an income from running the building as a kind of convention centre.
It reminds me of one of the first decisions I had to make in the Government of Margaret Thatcher when we found that a nationalised body, the NFC, was running a removals company called Pickfords. We dealt with it, as my noble friend on the Front Bench will remember, but what is a public body doing running what is in essence a private-sector undertaking? It is a question that might be asked but, here, the question is even sharper. There is a limited number of venues where the Lords could take up temporary accommodation. It is not up to one Minister to put his department’s interests in front of what could be a national interest, and certainly a parliamentary interest.
We should think very clearly about what is being proposed here. Having set out on his path, the Minister had no option but to propose an alternative, and it appears to be to go for a permanent solution and move the House of Lords to, probably, Stoke-on-Trent. For 31 years, I was a Midlands Member of Parliament. I have nothing against Stoke as a city, although I must say for constituency reasons that I would favour Birmingham or Nottingham. I can see only one argument for such a system: that I would love to be there when the noble Lord, Lord True, goes up to Stoke to explain the hereditary by-election system to the people there. I am sure that they would listen with great interest.
What is proposed does not add up one bit to a levelling-up agenda. The public are not fools. They would see such a move as an empty public relations measure with a range of practical drawbacks, as has been set out in various papers. How would we organise Joint Committee meetings effectively? How would we organise all-party parliamentary group and party-political group meetings? Of course, I have no interest in such things any more, being on the Cross Benches, but there are all sorts of practical reasons that amount to the life of this Parliament, but which have not been considered one little bit. A vast number of questions require answers.
All kinds of public bodies have given their views on the proposal, and they have predominantly been against it. It is not just us in the House of Lords; it is those outside. The argument I found most convincing was put by an independent voice: Mark D’Arcy, a BBC political correspondent whom I think many of us know to be both independent and an objective observer of the House of Lords. He said that Parliament should not be divided by relocation, and that:
“Those moments in the chamber where a minister faltered and opinion crystallised against them are much more elusive if the minister is on a screen rather than standing at the dispatch box.”
I think we all recognise that as being the truth of the situation. He also said that
“question times with online participants are necessarily more scripted and less searching”,
leading to less effective challenging of Ministers. It all adds up to the fact that the major beneficiary of the change being put forward seems to be the Government—not just one Government but all Governments.
My fear is basically this: far from increasing the influence of the second Chamber with government, it will, by the policy of separation, decrease it. Out of the way, out of sight—that is the danger. It will make it much more difficult to hold Ministers to account and the only people who will be happy with that result are Ministers. Let us be clear: Governments, it is reasonably safe to say, do not like independent voices to cast doubt on their policies or oppose their plans—I hope that it is not too controversial to say that; the noble Lord, Lord True, might even agree with that one —especially plans that might have been forced through in the other place by Whips exercising the power of a big majority.
Current Ministers say that restoration of the Parliament building is of course purely a matter for MPs and Back-Bench Lords. One wonders, then, why Ministers such as Mr Rees-Mogg and Mr Gove are so eager to intervene and put their case on the record—and in one case close policy options. We started this process in 2014. A few days ago, eight years after that date, we had a new document, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster: A New Mandate. So we start again.
Basically, my view is this: for goodness’ sake, let us stop messing about. We need to keep to one course. What we do not want is to make this a botched project that shows the world—and make no mistake, the world will be watching our progress on this—how difficult it is for this country to make decisions and stick to them. Above all, we should recognise that we are one Parliament, not two.
House of Lords: Appointments
Lord Fowler Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there are a lot of questions there. The original Question, which I answered, was whether there are plans to reform the current system of appointments to this House, and I repeat that there are not. So far as numbers are concerned, I did not notice the noble Lord being reticent when he was advising Mr Tony Blair on appointing Labour Peers.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I would like to ask a question about hereditary by-elections. Can it be right that membership of this House can be by an exclusive back door marked “hereditary Peers only”? Why will the Government not introduce the kind of legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was talking about? Reforming legislation to remove anomalies like that would be widely welcomed, not least by this House.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend refers to a back door. The back door is actually the law of the land, a statute passed by Parliament. Hereditary Peers continue to contribute to the work of your Lordships’ House through committee memberships and in debates in the Chamber, and I think they do so in an outstanding manner.
House of Lords: Appointments Process
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I would love to follow up the noble Lord’s points, but time does not really permit. There is something entirely typical about this debate: here we have one of the most important issues facing this House, but it is relegated to a one-hour debate on a Thursday afternoon, with speeches of no more than two minutes. Nevertheless, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, not only on his very good speech but on having the courage, which the Government lack, to raise the issue. The debate has perhaps one advantage: at this time on a Thursday afternoon, no one is paying much attention outside, so we can have an entirely frank discussion without being overheard.
The reputation of this House—we should face this, if nothing else—stands very low in the public esteem at the moment. Attacks and criticism come from all sides. Not all are justified—that is undoubtedly the case—and we should be able to respond to them and argue the case for the House. When I say “we”, I do not just mean we on the Back Benches but Ministers, particularly of this House, who can take the opportunities that the modern media present to them. At the same time, we should also recognise that some of the criticism directed at us is entirely justified. The House is too big. I will not go into this again because I set up a committee, and noble Lords know its result.
Financial donations to political parties should not, by themselves, have any part in entry to the House of Lords. That is my view; we may not always agree on that. We should, self-evidently, rid ourselves of the continuing absurdity of hereditary Peer by-elections. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is exactly right in the newly reformed wording of his Question. What we need is an independent committee to review the position. We also need a proper debate in this House to consider the options.
Lord Fowler (CB)
The Minister mentioned me. I said it should not be the formative reason why someone is appointed to this House. Making a political donation should not be an automatic passport into the House of Lords. That is the—I think for most people unexceptionable —proposal that I made.
Lord True (Con)
I am surprised by my noble friend’s phrase, “an automatic passport”. If one looks at the record of people who have come in under the rubric he cited, including a noble Lord who is often mentioned here, one will find that they have made extraordinary and large-scale philanthropic contributions to society. One needs to see an individual in the whole and a House in the round.
Volunteering and supporting a political party are part of our civic democracy. Political parties are part of public service. In Britain, taxpayers do not have to bankroll political parties’ campaigning. Political parties have to raise money themselves and follow transparency and compliance rules that are laid out in law. Those who oppose fundraising need to explain how much they want taxpayers to pay for state funding instead.
I must conclude. In time, we will have an opportunity to discuss the favourite topic of my noble friend, as I like to call him, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. On 3 December there is a debate on the issue that he and others have put before the House in relation to hereditary Peers.
In conclusion, I repeat that the constitutional position in this country is that the Prime Minister is responsible for advising Her Majesty on appointments to the House. The Government do not see the case for changing this. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible to Parliament and the people for nominations he makes to the House and how he conducts that work. The Government do not plan to establish a committee—
Hereditary Peers: By-elections
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend puts forward an interesting suggestion. Some would say that what was proposed in 1999 worked well at the time, but I repeat that the Government believe that reform must be considered very carefully. I take note of what my noble friend has said.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, for those of us who support the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, it is a matter not of personalities but of closing a backdoor that gives membership to this House —perhaps I should say another backdoor. I hope that the Government realise that the reputation of this House is not so strong that we can maintain arrangements that seem indefensible to the vast majority of this country. Perhaps the Government do not mind this, but many in this House do.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend talks about backdoors. Of course, the proposition before us would be a backdoor to the creation of an all-appointed House with no assent by people or Commons.
Overseas Development Assistance
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 July (HCWS172) setting out the fiscal circumstances under which they will return to spending 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income on Overseas Development Assistance, as stipulated in the Official Development Assistance Target Act 2015, whether they intend to bring forward primary legislation in this area; and if not, why not.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 and to spending 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance. The decisions taken are in line with the spirit and framework of the Act, which envisages situations in which departure from the 0.7% may be necessary. Yesterday’s vote provided the House of Commons with a further opportunity to consider the return to 0.7%. In the light of that and our continued commitment to the 2015 Act, there is no need to bring forward additional legislation.
Lord Fowler (CB)
I am afraid that that reply does not convince me. Surely the vote yesterday means that an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses has been overturned by a last-minute Motion passed by just one House, in spite of clear government commitments in November that they would bring forward proper legislation. I will make one short point: I hope the Minister recognises that the vote yesterday does not represent the view of this Parliament.
Kalifa Review of UK Fintech
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I gave noble Lords a sense of the key findings in my opening answer, but there are several others that I can make my noble friend aware of: for example, a task force led by the Treasury and the Bank of England to co-ordinate exploration of a potential UK central bank digital currency, and a new Bank of England account type that will allow innovative financial market infrastructures to provide enhanced wholesale payments and settlements. There are also the DIT initiatives that I mentioned earlier.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014
Lord Fowler Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend puts his finger on a key issue that I alluded to in my reply to the noble Baroness opposite, in terms of the scale of the undertaking that would be required. I agree—government publishes data on meetings between Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and external interests. Regulation must balance the need for transparency on third-party lobbyists while not preventing engagement by the voluntary and private sector. These issues require and will receive very careful consideration. I can assure all noble Lords that the matter of integrity in public life is something that this Government take profoundly seriously.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and it brings Question Time to an end.