Houses of Parliament: Co-location

Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Thursday 16th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[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 Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Declare your interest.

[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.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Yes, I am. And they did so with the aid of the Speaker, who has acted in a way that is, to say the least, somewhat novel. It is an important point, because those Standing Orders in this House and the other place are our constitution, and if they are to be torn up or changed by people who do not accept the result of what the people and Parliament—both Houses by a big majority—voted for, that is a crisis, and it is a far bigger crisis than anything that arises from having a longer period of Prorogation.

[The Lord Speaker]

My Lords, we really need to have a Question before us, otherwise we are having a debate at this stage. The noble Baroness has now been on her feet, or around her feet, for about 23 minutes. It is the custom to use this not for debate but to put a Question.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Lord Fowler and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Friday 6th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may make a short intervention arising from the comments of my noble friend Lord Forsyth and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when he said that we are not talking in this debate about humanitarian aid. It is of course true that only part of the budget goes to humanitarian aid, but it is a vital part and we cannot just turn our backs upon it. My noble friend Lord Forsyth talked about the National Audit Office report, which I have read, and last-minute financial juggling, but I think that is entirely unfair where DfID is concerned, and I will tell him why.

The majority of that money went to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. It was entirely vital that it went to that fund, because around the world there are 3.5 million deaths a year, so I hope at any rate that all those who have spoken today, including those in favour of this amendment, would agree that that was worthwhile expenditure. The idea that—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

[Lord Fowler]

Let me go on, if I may, because we have just heard the noble Lord. If he will just be patient, then I will let him in. The noble Lord said that this was rushed out in March. To my knowledge, and as far as the Global Fund contribution was concerned, it was anything but rushed out in March. It was in fact previewed and promised by the previous Secretary of State. It has been on the books now for the last two years. The fact that it came out in March does not mean that the Secretary of State had a sudden rush of blood to the head and said, “Right, I’m going to give half a billion pounds to the Global Fund”; it meant that there was a process of careful consideration. It concerns me that that position should have been misstated. That is the reality of much of the aid money that we are talking about. Apart from development, which my noble friend Lord Howell spoke about, we are also talking about these issues.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. When I used the phrase “the money had been rushed out”, I was not quoting directly. My source was Margaret Hodge, who is chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. She concluded that it appeared that cash has been “rushed out” to meet the 0.7% target, and added:

“This raises questions about value for money which Parliament will be keen to look into”.

[Lord Fowler]

I am grateful, but not for the first time I think that Margaret Hodge is wrong. When my noble friend talks about last-minute financial juggling, he is overstating the case very substantially indeed. The reality that lies below what we have heard at the moment is that we are also talking about underresourced hospitals where drugs run out and patients die, and around the world where births are taking place on concrete floors. I know that my noble friend agrees with the point that I have just made.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

When my noble friend says that I am wrong to say that it was rushed out, does he acknowledge that 40% of the budget was spent in November and December 2013, December being the year end? Surely that points to a justification for what I said.

[Lord Fowler]

No, I do not think it does and for the reasons I have just stated. Untypically, I do not think that my noble friend is listening to my argument, because this has been in preparation for at least two years, to my knowledge. That cannot be denied. My noble friend talked about people not reading the reports, but he should read some of the statements made by previous Secretaries of State. It is totally unfair to talk about DfID financially juggling the figures. That is not right; it is responding to a need from around the world because there is a need for consistency. If you are going to develop a vaccine, for example, you need consistency in the money and support that come forward.

I will make one last point. My noble friend started his speech by saying disparagingly that this is a Liberal Democrat measure. It is a Liberal Democrat measure but it is one that is, and has been, supported by all three parties. We have a bipartisan position here. I say to my noble friends who have spoken in favour of this amendment that while that is obviously their view, which I respect—I respect my noble friend Lord MacGregor, for example, and my other colleagues—they are the minority in this debate. The majority in the other place overwhelmingly supported this provision. It would be my guess and estimate that if this ever came to a vote in this House on the principle, it would be supported here overwhelmingly in just the same way.