EU Council June 2014

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I know that the Prime Minister will want to carry out and, he will hope, complete successfully a renegotiation that he can recommend to the people of Britain that he believes is in the interests of Britain. That is not about a party political agenda or management task. In putting that package, whenever it is concluded, to the British people it would clearly need to command the support of the whole of Britain and all of those from any party who want to see Britain remain in a reformed European Union.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, does the Leader of the House recall that when a Labour Prime Minister wanted to achieve something at a summit, we arranged for the ambassadors in all the countries of Europe and our Foreign Office Ministers to do some preparatory work to move us in that direction? We also worked through the Party of European Socialists to get all our socialist colleagues into line to support us. Could the Leader of the House explain what the Prime Minister did along those lines?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I will take it very happily from the noble Lord that that was how the previous Government operated. Unfortunately, they also gave up our veto through the Nice and Lisbon treaties. That made the pursuit of our national interest much more difficult in these circumstances.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Friday 31st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I shall be brief because I do not think there is much I can add. I think I have set the position out extremely clearly. I do not think there is any confusion. It is the case that Ministers speak from the Front Bench; they therefore speak from the Dispatch Box. On the rare occasions when there is not an agreed collective position, they are obviously under an obligation to make clear when they are speaking solely in their capacity as a member of a party. My noble friend will do that. I think it is clear. I regret if there has been any confusion, but I hope the House now understands the position.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, this has been a very illuminating intervention in my reply to the debate. However, with respect to the Leader of the House, he still has not clarified the point raised by my noble friend Lord Anderson, which I also raised, about the officials who appear to be advising not just the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, but the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My noble friend Lady Warsi was extremely clear about that as well. As it happens, there is a convention that we should not name people in the House who are not Members. That aside, we have clearly gone past that point. My noble friend made very clear the distinction, which anyone who has been a Minister will understand, that there are civil servants and officials to advise on government policy and a political person to advise on political matters. I have always believed extremely strongly in the traditional distinction in our system between civil servants who properly should stay one side of the line. I expect all civil servants to do that, to know very well how to tread the right side of the line and to make sure that Ministers do not step over it. Political advisers are another matter. That is the distinction, and that is the way it operates.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am very grateful to the Leader of the House. That is absolutely clear. I now return to what I was saying earlier. Incidentally, I hope I will be given injury time and that people outside will not take all those interventions as part of my response.

I want to return to what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said. I have great respect for him. We served together for a long time in the House of Commons. I was quite surprised that he returned again to the steamroller argument that we have to get this through, that we are not able to carry out our role of scrutinising properly and that we have this arbitrary deadline. I am replying to that very inadequately, but it was replied to very adequately by my noble friend Lord Richard, who has 25 years’ experience in this House and is a former Leader of the Opposition. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will pay attention to that.

European Commission: Staffing

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 4th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

No, no; the noble Lord doesn’t represent anyone.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)]

My Lords, we are wasting time. It is the turn of the Labour Party.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Surely the noble Lord—as a Liberal Democrat Euro-enthusiast; and I am also a Euro-enthusiast—would agree that the problem has been exacerbated by the uncertainty over our future position within Europe. Would he, if he were 20 or 30 years younger, really apply for such a risky position?

Smoking: Cigarette Packaging

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

We will briefly hear from my noble friend and then go over to the other side.

Iraq: Chilcot Inquiry

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 22nd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with the points my noble friend makes. To be clear, the timing of this inquiry is set by the inquiry itself. The Government have not set a timetable and we are not seeking to rush it. It must take the time. However, I take the point that we need to learn the lessons and that it has to be within a reasonable timeframe.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, could the Leader of the House tell the House how the Government will take account of the conclusions and recommendations of the Chilcot inquiry on Iraq in deciding their policy on Syria?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

First, we need the report to be concluded. Then, as the Chilcot inquiry has made clear, there needs to be a process whereby those people who are mentioned in the report have the chance to comment on it. Then the report will be published. Then everyone in this House, as well as the Government, will be able to draw the conclusions from the Chilcot inquiry, wherever that takes us.

House of Lords: Oral Questions

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Thursday 21st March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

As is often the case, my Lords, I do think that less is more. The Companion is extremely clear. It says that supplementary questions should be,

“short and confined to not more than two points … they should not incorporate statements of opinion. They should not be read”.

I think all of us will want to remember that.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Does the Leader also recall that the Companion says—I must not point—that initial Answers by Ministers should be no more than 75 words long? It is in his power to regulate that. What is he doing about it?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

If the noble Lord had been able to count the number of words that I gave in my Answer, he would see that it was spot on 75. The noble Lord has just forgotten his own self-injunction about pointing. I have spoken to my Front Bench, and I agree very much about the need for those initial Answers to be succinct. I also think that the shorter the questions, the tendency will be the shorter the answers. Long questions tend to lead to long answers.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I thought that at least in moving the Motion, the Leader of the House would have the courtesy to explain why Standing Orders are being dispensed with, particularly as we have so many Cross-Benchers here today to listen to the debate on what is a very controversial Bill, and as we have plenty of time—or at least we would have, as I said last Thursday, when the Leader of the House was not present, if he had not decided summarily and without any consultation to send us off for an extra week’s holiday. I am sure that we would be better served here looking at this Bill properly and in detail rather than having that extra week. I hope that the Leader of the House will have the courtesy to explain to the House why he is moving this Motion.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, there are two separate issues. One is the need for emergency legislation, the other is to do with the timing of the Easter Recess. I know that there is a lot of strong feeling in the House about the timing of that. I recognise that. A number of noble Lords have made that case to me directly. In these circumstances, the usual channels, just as was the case when the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was Leader of the House and, before that, Chief Whip, do their best to give the House notice and to order the business in such a way that we can land things when we aim to. We do not always succeed. We do our best, and in doing so we have to strike a balance between the business before us and the costs—the best part of £500,000—of this House sitting for a week.

With regard to the emergency legislation, we have set out the case for that in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. In essence, there is an urgent need to legislate to save £130 million of taxpayers’ money.