Strathclyde Review

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, I join those who congratulate my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and his team of experts on a really excellent report; it is extremely useful in setting out the position with regard to statutory instruments and, to some extent, financial privilege. I have only one technical quibble: it would have been helpful, particularly in relation to this debate, if the paragraphs had been numbered.

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling, because I had the pleasure of serving under his chairmanship on the Joint Committee on Conventions, which was a remarkable committee. As he has just said, it was unanimous, and its reports were approved by both Houses as an appropriate way forward. It is worth referring to a passage in the report of the committee concerning statutory instruments, which was quoted in my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s report. It states:

“The Committee concluded that ‘the House of Lords should not regularly reject Statutory Instruments, but that in exceptional circumstances it might be appropriate for it to do so’. A number of specific circumstances were identified, for example, when the provisions of an SI were of the sort more normally found in primary legislation or in the case of certain specific orders”.

It went on to say that under particular circumstances, opposition parties should not simply vote against something because they had disagreed with it.

The crucial point is that one needs to put that in the context of the catalyst that gave rise to my noble friend’s report, namely the debate that we had on the tax credit order. It is absolutely clear from the passage I quoted that the convention was not breached. Quite clearly, that statutory instrument involved something that ought to have been in primary legislation. That being so, it was quite appropriate for the Opposition to take the view that it was legitimate to vote against it. The reason that I did not vote with them was because it involved financial privilege and it seemed to me that that overrode the issue as far as the convention and the ability to vote against it were concerned.

The whole issue arises from the extraordinary fact that this statutory instrument involved financial privilege to such a massive extent. I find it totally puzzling that the Treasury ever allowed this to happen. It looked as though it was trying to pull a fast one, which I do not believe was so. I can understand that the primary legislation enabled it to do that but, in political terms, not to foresee the problems that it would create in this House is, I think, quite extraordinary. We must, therefore, look at this whole issue and the report of my noble friend as a reaction to what was an extraordinary, and not a normal, situation. In that context, we need to consider our position. I had great trouble, as I said, in knowing which way to vote. There is no great problem in dealing with the financial privilege point; the simplest solution would be for the Treasury never to do the same thing again. Or it could be dealt with by the unusual procedure of being debated only by the Commons.

I come to the broader question of how to deal with the situation. I believe that the report 10 years ago had, basically, the right approach. It is not right to cite the tax credits fiasco, if I may put it that way, as a reason for saying we cannot maintain the convention. There is a lot to be said for it. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde and I share the view that conventions are better than legislation, if that can be done, although, strangely, he comes down in favour of option 3; I would prefer option 2.

We need to give this very careful consideration. Perhaps we should reconvene the committee on conventions —I am not volunteering, necessarily—to look at this issue again. There was no breach of the convention. My noble friend’s report is wrong, I think, in suggesting in a later passage that, somehow, the fact that this event took place shows how difficult it is to agree on what the conventions really are. We are fairly clear and we could in fact enumerate the various exceptions that might be appropriate. It is at least worth an attempt to do so, because it avoids legislation. I view the idea of more legislation on matters involving the House of Lords with considerable alarm. The issue of composition was cleverly avoided by my noble friend in his report by stating that it was outside his terms of reference, but that will not necessarily apply in the case of legislation. That is a dangerous and rather heavy road to go down. The report says that a Bill may not need to be very long. It is not a question of whether it is long but of whether it is dangerous. That is an important point that we need to bear in mind.

There have been various comments by people outside who take a profound interest in the operation of your Lordships’ House. I noticed that Meg Russell, who comments frequently on our affairs, suggested, perhaps optimistically, that this was a marvellous opportunity to have a negotiation on whether we should reduce the size of the House by capping our numbers in exchange for more restriction on the operation of this House. That is rather optimistic—it would certainly confuse the negotiations.

Overall, we should have a shot at option 2. I rule option 1 absolutely out of court, not least because, as my noble friend Lady Fookes said, it would affect our two extremely valuable committees that do this work that the House of Commons does not. But I think that that is a better option than suddenly rushing in on the back of an event that was controversial to legislate on this matter and to limit and control the powers of your Lordships’ House.

Syria: Refugees and Counterterrorism

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As regards the noble Lord’s request for a debate, my noble friend the Chief Whip has already scheduled time for a debate on the humanitarian situation. That is scheduled for a week on Wednesday. Regarding the other points made by the noble Lord, I can only repeat what I said before. This is a policy that the Government have adopted over the last few years. We believe that the contribution we are making to support people in and around that region is significant. It is much greater than any other European country. As far as expanding the refugee programme, the policy remains the same; we are simply expanding it because we see an increased need at this time.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, it is very important that migrants in danger of drowning in the Mediterranean should be rescued. However, at present after being rescued they are then disembarked in the European Union, thereby adding to the number of people coming across the borders. Does my noble friend agree that it is not really compatible with our policy that we should continue to do that, because at the moment the traffickers are able to say, “Don’t worry if the boats look unseaworthy. You’ll be rescued by the navy and taken to your destination anyway”? Therefore, they are encouraged even more to take the risk. More broadly, do we not have a definite interest in the Schengen agreement, which results in the situation in Calais, as has been pointed out? Should we not take a much stronger line in persuading our European partners that they ought—at any rate on a temporary basis—to suspend Schengen because it is not compatible with having external borders that are clearly not effective?

European Council

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords—

EU Council

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I think I have already made it clear that because President Putin has not delivered on his words and we must judge him on his actions, which so far have not met his words, we are strong and united within the European Union and alongside America in our demands of him and in making sure that he meets the terms of the Minsk agreement. We will continue to apply sanctions, which will stay in place until he meets the terms of that agreement.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the reference in the Statement to the Government’s eurozone contingency planning. Could she perhaps elaborate on that? Is it not apparent that despite all the bailouts, concessions and negotiations and so on, there is no way in which Greece will become competitive at the present exchange rate and will at the end of the day need to leave the eurozone? In those circumstances, it is crucial that it should be done in an orderly way, which will be a very difficult task involving exchange controls and so on. It is essential that our Government, because we have an interest in this issue, co-operate to make sure that there are contingency plans for an arrangement whereby Greece can withdraw on an orderly basis.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I do not share my noble friend’s view that Greece will leave the eurozone. Certainly all efforts are being made by the eurozone’s other members to ensure that Greece remains in the eurozone. It is in everyone’s interests—those of the countries that are part of the eurozone and those of the United Kingdom—that the eurozone continues to operate securely. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister held contingency planning meetings with senior officials none the less because that is the right and prudent action for him to take. We are working on the basis that the eurozone will continue.

G7

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I very much agree with the noble Lord on the importance of doing that. In the short term, I know that the Minister in the Foreign Office is meeting the Iraqi Foreign Minister today. Clearly, we need to do what we can to provide what assistance we can. In the first instance, this is very much the responsibility of the Iraqis to take the lead on; they have a properly elected Government and they have their own security forces. But on the noble Lord’s broad point about the need to focus on this within the G7 or EU or whatever, and to work up a concerted approach and devote energy to doing that, I agree with him entirely.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, clearly, the action by the Russian Government in relation to Crimea and Ukraine has totally changed the position on the G7’s relationship with Russia. That being so, it is obviously important to look at our defence position. While I hope that we have a clear position with regard to NATO and military matters, we appear to be absurdly vulnerable on economic matters, where President Putin is said to have shown a considerable interest in the ability of countries to use economic pressure to achieve their aims. That being so, was our response to the Russian actions not really very inadequate? Indeed, the only real sanctions were largely imposed by the markets, rather than by Governments. The vulnerability of Germany in particular, and other European countries, to the control by the Russians of gas to those countries, means that we have not been able to respond as would have been appropriate.

The Statement refers to diversification of supply of gas. I hope that my noble friend can spell it out a little more that we really are taking positive action to make sure that we are not dependent on Russian gas within the G7 countries generally, as we are at present.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I very much take the point about the importance of ensuring that there is diversification around energy supply, and a number of measures are in hand in the EU and through the G7 to try to take that forward. On sanctions more generally, I would argue that the steps taken so far have made a contribution. I understand my noble friend’s point about the importance of the power of markets to drive that, as well, but the combination of sanctions and markets is having the effect that I alluded to on the Russian economy. It is also the case, with regard to the adequacy of that response, that work is going on through the European Union. If Russia either destabilises the situation further or causes more difficulties with Ukraine over its signing of the accession agreement, urgent work has been going on to work up a range of sector-wide sanctions to hit various areas, whether it is defence, finance or energy. Therefore, I agree with my noble friend that we need to do that work and make it clear to Russia that, if we have to take further steps, we will do so.

G8 Summit

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I had not heard those latest figures on Northern Ireland, and I am delighted to hear them. They are further evidence of the benefits of holding the G8 there and the wisdom of doing so. I am very grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord. On his more general point about tax avoidance and so on, this whole approach will clearly only work if it is applied on a level basis across all countries. The aim of much greater transparency is at the heart of this approach. An example is publishing information on where countries pay tax in order to work out where the profits are. Trying to make that approach across a broad front lies at the heart of what was agreed at the G8.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, this has been an usually successful and constructive conference. The proposals being made on taxation regarding transparency and so on should certainly have a pretty rapid and significant effect on tax evasion, but they will have only a relatively limited effect on aggressive tax avoidance. Consulting internationally is certainly welcome, as the Statement says in relation to the OECD. However, at the end of the day, it is a matter for taxation in this country. Multinationals which use these aggressive techniques in this country have said that doing so is within the law. This is true, but it means that our law needs to be changed, which is a very technical subject. The law needs to relate to profits made in this country, and in some way enact a tax on the profits of online transactions which originate in this country. I hope that we will not overlook that side when looking at the international aspect of the matter.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That point is well made. I hope that the drive towards greater transparency will flush out and illustrate some of the problems to which my noble friend refers, solutions to which can then be worked on in the way that he suggests.

Procedure of the House

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, with due respect to the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and as someone who does not usually speak on these issues, as a very ordinary Back- Bencher, I should like to make my views known. I fundamentally disagree with the previous speaker, because why should I, as an ordinary Back-Bencher, not be allowed to challenge the report by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, or any other report? I expect to agree or disagree. Why should a group of Members from the Back-Benches select certain topics when we know that we all have our internal prejudices? It would be very difficult for some topics to get through those prejudices. What procedure would the Leader of the House put in place to ensure that, if we had this committee, no Member was open to lobbying by any external group to make sure that Members are free from any prejudice in the list? It is for those reasons that I felt that I had to get up to speak to, very unusually, disagree with my colleagues and very firmly—and this is not usual—agree with the Leader.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, I support the proposal for a Back-Bench committee. Indeed, I was one of those who put the suggestion to the Procedure Committee. I start by paying tribute to the former Leader of the House for establishing the working group on our working practices. He was sometimes accused of dragging his feet and not getting on, but we have made a number of improvements, although a number remain to be made, of which this is one, and I hope that we can make progress on it today. Secondly, I express appreciation to the present Leader of the House for the extra time that he is proposing we should have for Back-Bench debates, which is very important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, asked why we should go along with the Goodlad report. The answer is very simple: we should or should not go along with it on the basis of the arguments that were put forward on this issue. The letter that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has circulated strongly stresses that we should look at the situation and read the report of the Procedure Committee. I am sure that we should read the Procedure Committee report, but the report that we should be reading on this issue is the Goodlad report. The recommendations in this regard run to a full page and are supported by a number of paragraphs arguing in favour of such a committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, set forward the case comprehensively. I do not wish to delay the House for long, but I shall refer to one personal experience of these matters. At the height of the first outbreak of the eurozone crisis, I sought to obtain a debate on the Floor of the House. It proved extremely difficult. I tried for week after week on a matter of major importance; meanwhile ballots were taking place on issues of relative unimportance. Eventually I managed to secure a debate in the Moses Room. The Motion was immediately hijacked by the Opposition, who added a second part to it, which was entirely partisan. The debate broke up completely in both directions and the real issue of the eurozone was barely debated. Had we had such a committee at the beginning of the crisis, we could have had what would have been, as always in your Lordships’ House, an expert debate. This is not going to happen with a ballot.

The reality is that the odds on the chance of getting a debate on a major issue as against some particular enthusiasm are not good. A large number of Members may have put in for the ballot and the odds are getting worse because there are more Members. Therefore, the chances of getting relevant, topical, important debates would be improved if we had someone, and a group of the kind suggested, who would be effective in bringing that about.

My noble friend asked a moment ago how the group would be selected. I am strongly in favour of its members being elected. That seems to me the obvious way of proceeding rather than by appointment or any other method. That should ensure that they are appropriately members of the committee and can then act in our interests as far as the overall picture is concerned.

Reference has been made to the situation in the House of Commons. Its Members are enthusiastic about the change that was made to their proceedings. Matters are never on all fours between one House and the other but I had the chance last night of speaking to Mr Bernard Jenkin, who happened to be involved in procedures in the other place and who is wildly enthusiastic about what has happened there. Perhaps that is overstating it; I am not sure that one is ever wildly enthusiastic about such matters. But he has not the slightest doubt that the change has meant that Back-Benchers have a greater influence on the matters that are debated and the priority given to them. That is what we ought to secure by this proposal and I hope very much indeed that we do, because I am frankly rather puzzled by the position that the Leader of the House has taken. I do not think that the present arrangement is working well and we ought to reform it.

[Lord Filkin]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, because I am sure that the House wishes to come to a conclusion on this quite rapidly. I was slightly troubled by the last thing that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said in his excellent speech, as it is almost guaranteed to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will not now vote in support of the Motion. But you cannot have everything, can you?

The points are as follows. If we adopt the proposal on the Order Paper, we are much more likely to be able to have timely debates on issues that the public think are important and we will be seen to be relevant. That is important; it was one of the fundamental issues that the Goodlad report affirmed. Secondly, unlike in the Commons, these issues are not divisible. That is important for our traditions. The Government do not have to fear what they fear in the Commons—that you have a debate on some contentious issue leading to a headline story that the Lords voted X or Y. That would not happen and it is in keeping with our traditions that it should not. That ought to allow the Government and the coalition parties who are signatories to the letter to relax a little bit on this issue. Thirdly, the proposal makes no change to the existing procedure for QSDs. Those who are beloved of ballots will still be able to go in for ballots for a number of QSDs; that is going to continue. Finally, we all know that the Government can ensure that there is a debate on any issue that they judge to be topical and important whenever they wish to do so. Back-Benchers ought to be able to do the same.

House of Lords: Membership

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, tempted as I am, I will not follow the reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on second chambers across the world. During my time as Lord Speaker, I developed a very good 45-minute lecture on second chambers around the world, but I suspect that the House would not appreciate hearing it today.

Like others, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for giving us the opportunity to consider this issue today and, if I may say so, even more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing a proposition before the House that I think is in many ways more acceptable than the original one of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, given the interpretation that people could put on that and the suggestion of constitutional impropriety or of being unwelcoming to new Members. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, had to say on that. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Steel, I was deeply depressed when I read the Written Answer that appeared in Hansard on 15 February. While it is understandable that the Government should feel frustrated at the loss of their proposals for an elected House, those proposals were indeed lost. The reality of the situation is that we have two and a half years until the next general election and some time beyond that during which this House will continue to be an appointed House. It is constitutionally and politically irresponsible not to take at least some modest measures now to take us forward.

I am not a supporter of an elected House. I am a supporter of a rather radical reform of this House which is not encompassed in what is before us today, or the Bill before another place. However, I have to accept that that reality cannot be achieved at the moment. The elements in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, provide a minimum basis for us to take forward some of the changes that are need in your Lordships’ House. It will not radically reduce the numbers but, having been deeply involved with these issues for some time, I believe that not having a legislative base on which to build the House’s consensus—as I hope it will develop—on retirement is a terrible impediment to going forward. One thinks of resources as being about money and people, but as a Minister I learnt that, in politics, resources are also about legislative time. Allowing retirement to be a reality—in future “life” not meaning “for life”—is enormously important.

The issue of those with criminal convictions, though very small, narrow and, of course, not retrospective—how could it ever be?—is important for this House. It is also an important basis for our own disciplinary action in future. Even this minimalist legislative change is enormously important and would give us the basis on which to go forward. The other day, I asked the Leader whether he would do the service to this House that could be done by allowing us that minimum basis. I am very encouraged by the fact that there are those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—though unfortunately not the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—believe in an elected House but still recognise the problems and the reality of the years ahead. Noble Lords who want to participate in the business of the House sometimes cannot because they cannot be within the Chamber. That is not a proper way for us to continue. We want to welcome new Members and if we are to do so, we also have to find a way in which membership of this House can cease. It is our responsibility to try and do that. We will not achieve it overnight. There will not be immediate unanimity about the grounds for retirement and how we go forward. However, since 1999 we have had constant reasons why proposed changes were not exactly right. We have had constant reversals to proposals for incremental change on the basis that we were going to have all-singing, all-dancing proposals for election. It has got us into terrible trouble over numbers and over financial support for Members. Those who were arguing that we needed to change that system sooner were told, “Don’t worry because very soon we will have a Bill, we will have elections, we will have a salaried House”.

It is not responsible to continue to do nothing. We have to make a start somewhere and I hope very much that the House will today make that view very clear.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, I very much welcome this debate. It is important that we bring pressure on the Government to carry out the urgent changes that have been set out by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and those on the Opposition Front Bench. I certainly welcome that. Like others, I was concerned about the Written Answer to which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, referred.

The noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench pointed out that it will clearly be a long time before there is any likelihood of our moving towards an elected Chamber. However, there is another point. I am optimistic on that issue because it is absolutely clear, despite the rather mixed procedure on voting in the other place, that its Members now clearly understand that it is not in their interests to have an elected House of Lords with regard to the situation both at Westminster and in their constituencies. It is high time that it is recognised that this is the case and that we should not go further forward on that point.

In all events, it is important that we deal with the issue of the size of this House and the other issues mentioned in the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to the arrangements set out in the coalition agreement. Again, the coalition should recognise that that is not a sensible way of dealing with the size of this House. We do not know on either of those points what will appear in the manifestos—the reality is that manifestos are cooked up behind closed doors, with virtually no consideration at all for Members of Parliament in either House. We cannot tell, but I hope that on both matters such proposals will not be included in either of the main parties’ manifestos.

The Motion proposes that there should be no increase in the number of Members until the size of the House is determined—I do not have the exact wording. However, it is extremely important that the Government clearly set out how they envisage the programme for the House of Lords. The House is getting bigger and bigger and, presumably at some stage, its size has to be reduced. The danger then, particularly after an election, is that it increases again. The Government need to say what they think is the maximum size possible within that transitional period and what the ultimate aim ought to be. We need some guidance on the optimum size of the House.

The other points that have been debated concern the various amendments in what I am still inclined to call the Steel Bill. We should simply go ahead with them, and the block in the House of Commons ought to be removed. It is difficult to avoid the impression that a sense of pique on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister is leading to that block. We ought to go ahead with those changes, and we can perfectly well do so way before the date of the next general election.

Finally, perhaps I may make a more controversial point. Paragraph 47 of the Hunt report suggests that provisions for retirement might be made. I realise that this is highly controversial, but once a Treasury Minister, always a Treasury Minister. If there is one crucial issue in the Government’s policy at the moment, it is to reduce the deficit. On the proposal that one should create, for example, an incentive scheme whereby a modest payment was made based on the expenses incurred in the previous full year, minus travel expenses, it would be helpful to see to what extent that might produce a significant reduction in the size of the House. At all events, it is a means of saving public expenditure, which I hope would be acceptable.

I have one final point about the position of my own Front Bench. I am told that the position normally is that they vote against things that are not government policy. That is a rather strange doctrine: many good proposals are not government policy; that is no reason to vote against them. As for the proposals in the amendment, I think it is clear that the House has already approved them in the shape of the legislation sent to the other place. To then go and vote against them seems a very strange attitude to take.

House of Lords: Working Practices

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, I join all those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on initiating this debate. I am very glad that the Leader of the House is to reply since much of the debate has centred on the report of the working group on which he took the initiative in setting up. I also congratulate the House of Lords Library which has produced an outstandingly good brief. Appendix 1 provides the agenda the noble Lord opposite referred to a moment or two ago and gives an indication of what needed to be done, how much has been done and how much still remains to be done.

I find it quite extraordinary that in the summary by the Library, in the debate today and in the Goodlad report no one refers to what has been the most obnoxious and fundamental change that has taken place in our proceedings in relation to the scrutiny of legislation by Parliament: the programming of debates in another place. This is in no sense a criticism of another place. The reality is that it has been prevented from working as it should by successive Governments, first Mr Blair’s and, regrettably, now the present Government, despite assurances that the incoming Government would not programme legislation in another place. We have almost ceased to be a revising Chamber. In many ways, we have become the primary legislative Chamber. On top of all that, we find that when we have passed amendments, they are then programmed in another place so that the time allocated in the Commons for discussion of our amendments, on which we had important, complex legal arguments a short time earlier, has been less than the time we took going through the Division Lobbies in passing those amendments. This has to stop. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will carry out urgent discussions with the new leader in another place and also, if necessary, raise the matter in Cabinet because we ought not to go on in this way. It is an indication of how much we are doing that should be done by the other place that we pass very often many amendments, all of which are immediately accepted by the other place. At the same time, there are one or two controversial issues for which time is not allowed for proper debate in the light of the discussions which have taken place in this House. Much more important than many other issues that we have discussed is that the balance between the two Houses should be restored.

In the little time I have left, I shall say something about the size of the House. It is absolutely clear that the proposal that the membership of this House should reflect the result of the previous election is bound over time to lead to a bigger and bigger House. It was a mistake to agree to that in, I believe, the coalition agreement and it should stop now. We cannot go on having more and more Members.

There have been many proposals on how we should reduce the size of the House as it now stands, including age, length of service, party selection, votes in the House and so on. Proposals about the usual problem of removing the people who do not come does not make any difference to the number of people who attend. That is an intrinsic problem. My feeling is that there are a number of Peers who would be prepared to retire but that it requires a degree of incentive. The proposal that perhaps by way of incentive one might offer the amount by the individual Member claimed as expenses in a previous year, excluding travel allowances, might provide a reasonable and sensible sort of an incentive. An inquiry as to what extent that might produce a number of people who might be prepared to retire, or might think it appropriate to retire, might solve this problem, which otherwise will be very difficult and troublesome to resolve in any other way. I am out of time, although I have dozens of points to make which will have to wait for another occasion.

EU Council

Lord Higgins Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement by the Prime Minister on the outcome of the European Council meeting.

On the tragic news from Afghanistan, all our thoughts are with the families and friends of the soldiers concerned. This news reminds us once again of the risks our troops face daily and of our duty to do everything we can to protect them.

The Prime Minister in the other place included in his Statement on Europe a statement on banking. Leaving aside the admirable vote of confidence in his Chancellor, who is following the Prime Minister's Statement with his own Statement on banking, we on these Benches believe that it is right that the Prime Minister has reconsidered the position that he set out last week on the need for a full inquiry. However, we are not convinced that the way forward on this issue is the Joint Committee that he is proposing. It does not suggest that the Government have grasped the scale of the problem. We know that politicians investigating bankers will not convince the people of this country; nor is it the way we can build the consensus that is needed for real change. After all, there have already been a number of Select Committee reports into the banking crisis.

The crisis surrounding the banks now demands an inquiry similar to the inquiry into press behaviour currently being carried out by Lord Justice Leveson. We appreciate that the Leveson inquiry has been uncomfortable for politicians on all sides, but that is exactly how it should be. We will continue to argue for a full and open inquiry, independent of bankers and politicians, and we will table an amendment to the Financial Services Bill to this effect in order to get a proper inquiry that will be trusted by the people. We do not believe that we will rebuild public trust by having politicians investigating bankers. Like the Leveson inquiry, an inquiry needs to be searching, to expose what has been happening and to get to the truth. Furthermore, as we on these Benches hope will be the case with the Leveson inquiry, it needs to bring forward remedies to stop the practices, whether in journalism or in banks, that the public and all Members of this House oppose. That is how eventually trust will be rebuilt.

I turn now to Europe and the European Council meeting. On Syria, let me associate these Benches with what the Statement said. There was an agreement reached at Geneva on Saturday, but in truth there was little progress. The divisions within the international community on this issue mean that too little is being done to bring the escalating violence to an end. In that context, can the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, update your Lordships’ House on the position of Russia regarding a future for Syria without President Assad?

The European summit took place against a backdrop of the continuing crisis in the eurozone, a global recovery faltering, and a double-dip recession here in the UK. The central challenge is how we can have a Europe not of austerity and unemployment but of jobs and growth. On that central issue, the Government cannot be part of the solution because the Government are part of the problem. They have no answers and nothing to offer. On growth, the Prime Minister used an instructive phrase in his post-summit press conference. He said that,

“just as we had to tackle the euro crisis, so we have to tackle the growth crisis”.

He then added:

“Britain has been driving this debate”.

That really does suggest someone getting increasingly out of touch with reality because as the Prime Minister was speaking figures were coming in showing that the double-dip recession, created in Downing Street, was worse than we thought. The UK is one of only two countries in the G20 to be in a double-dip recession, with long-term youth unemployment having doubled during the past year. The summit agreed extra resources for the European Investment Bank for youth unemployment. Why do the Government appear to support action on this crucial issue in Europe while failing to act here at home? There can be no solution to the growth crisis unless we tackle the crisis of demand in the European economies and globally. Did the Prime Minister advocate any measures at the summit to bring this about?

On the banking regulator, what specific legal safeguards will the Government seek to secure between now and December’s final proposals to protect Britain’s interest in the single market? On the eurozone and bank recapitalisations, it is welcome that direct help can be provided to eurozone banks, but do the Government really believe that the funds that eurozone countries are making available are adequate? On the Patent Office, the Prime Minister says that the outcome is a sign of his success, but, as he argued for the office to be headquartered in London, how could the decision to base it in Paris be a diplomatic triumph?

I turn finally to the Prime Minister's position—or should I say positions?—on Europe. On Friday, the Prime Minister ruled out a referendum on Europe, saying:

“I completely understand why some people want an in/out referendum … I don’t think it’s the right thing to do”.

However, hours later, 100 Conservative Back-Benchers in the Commons and the former Defence Secretary called for an in/out referendum. Then, mysteriously, on Sunday, the Prime Minister hinted that he was ruling in a referendum. The Foreign Secretary then went on television and said:

“The Prime Minister is not changing our position”.

Three days, three positions. First, it was no; then it was yes; now it is maybe. Can this House have some clarity about the Government’s stance? First, has there been a change in the Government's position? Secondly, the Prime Minister spoke about a referendum being connected to the renegotiation of powers. Are the Government now saying that they might be in favour of withdrawal from the European Union if they do not get these powers? That would be a new position. Is it the Government’s position? Thirdly, can the Leader of the House explain the following? The Prime Minister said last October that,

“there is a danger that by raising the prospect of a referendum … we will miss the real opportunity to further our national interest”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/11; col. 27.]

Why is the Prime Minister doing precisely that now?

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister’s raising this issue has nothing to do with the national interest? He is doing so not to sort out the crisis of growth here at home or across the EU, or to tackle the disgrace of youth unemployment, but in an effort to manage the divisions in the Conservative Party.

Five years ago, then in opposition, the Prime Minister said that his party should stop banging on about Europe, but now he is the man getting out the drum. The country is confused about this Government and Europe—a veto that never was, a referendum which may happen, but not now. This is a party, the party opposite, talking to itself and not to the country. Britain deserves better. It is time that the Government started doing better for the people of this country.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, could my noble friend make it clear whether we are having one Statement or two?