Business of the House

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Adonis

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Leader of the House for moving the Motion. There are lots of details in it, but I want to make just four general points. First, I join other noble Lords who have spoken in thanking the staff for their work in getting us to this position. Change in your Lordships’ House is not readily embraced as a matter of principle, but over the last couple of months the degree of change has been phenomenal. That has been possible only because a large number of staff have worked extraordinarily hard, not least during the recesses, and I pay tribute to them for that.

I also thank them for their customary good humour in dealing with the frustrations that Members have sometimes felt about the way things have worked, which have sometimes boiled over on to them. It has been very much welcomed by me and everyone else. It has been a stressful time for a lot of people, not least for Members who are at home with the peculiar stresses of not being able to go out and desperately keen to play their normal role in your Lordships’ House.

This brings me to my second point. Having got this hybrid system up and running—which I am sure will be done smoothly—I hope that we retain it until all noble Lords who wish to attend can attend and are no longer subject to advice that, for health reasons, they should remain at home. Obviously, given the age profile of your Lordships’ House, there are more people in that category here than in another place, but it should be a matter of principle that all noble Lords who wish to participate can participate, and that we have a system that enables them to do so, even if, in some cases, they cannot be here for a considerable number of months.

Thirdly, the rules that we are agreeing today are extremely tight and prescriptive. That is inevitable, because we need a system that we can make work from next week. However, I suspect that as we use it—just as has happened a bit with Oral Questions—we can ease some of these restrictions so that we can get back to a position where debate in your Lordships’ House takes place in a relatively flexible manner. The obvious thing about this is the circumstances in which people can make interventions. Obviously, it is not going to be possible to have the normal interventions when you have tens of people watching distantly, but I hope that we can begin to move, in the light of experience, towards a slightly less rigid approach, because that is the essence of debate, and until we do, we will still be suffering some constraints.

Finally, the one outstanding issue which must be resolved is that of allowances, which I realise is an extremely vexed question. The only point I wish to make is that it is unacceptable to me that we should have a system which leads to a position whereby only those with resources, those who are retired and those who live in London can regularly come to your Lordships’ House. I think that this is common ground, but getting back to a system in which people are paid an allowance that allows everybody to participate fully is a top priority. We have agreed in the commission to come forward with revised proposals on allowances. We are beginning those discussions and have said that we will do so by the end of the month. Given that Members are already asking on what basis they will come if they are travelling several hundred miles, I hope that we can get a resolution to that question well before the end of the month, so that we can give a degree of certainty to Peers on what basis they can participate. Having said that, I repeat that I support these proposals, and I thank the staff and all those involved in getting us to this position so speedily.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make three preliminary remarks before coming to the Motion itself.

First, I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the Leader of the House, and my noble friend Lady Hayter, in respect of the staff of the House, who have done a magnificent job. Also, I know that he does not like this, but I want to mention the Clerk of the Parliaments, who has presided over a really impressive operation. His letter to noble Lords, which he has been sending out—we are now on the third edition—is very welcome. It is important when we are going through fundamental changes like this that we keep an information flow, and his regular updates have helped noble Lords understand what is going on, and have made it easier for them to have input, in terms of improvements.

Business of the House (Virtual Proceedings and Topical Questions for Written Answer)

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Adonis

Tuesday 21st April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I join the Chief Whip and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in thanking all those who have worked so hard to make this possible. A number of them will know that I have been quite impatient about some of the changes and in some cases do not feel that they have necessarily gone far enough—but, frankly, if we look at where we were a fortnight ago and compare it to where we are today, which is that from next week we will be having a wholly virtual House of Lords, it is by most tests, and certainly by House of Lords tests, a very quick rate of progress. We have achieved a position in which every Member will be able to continue to participate in the business of your Lordships’ House, however vulnerable they might be in terms of their health, and that is very welcome.

I, too, thank everybody who has made all this possible. It is a work in progress to a certain extent. Those of us who have been participating in practices for various bits of virtual activity later in the day know that it will not go totally smoothly on the first day—but I am sure it will do so quite quickly, so I again thank all those involved.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and my noble friend Lady Hayter in paying tribute to the officials of the House for the enormous amount of hard work that has gone in to making virtual proceedings a reality. Of course we welcome that, and I also very much associate myself with my noble friend’s remarks about our noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane.

Obviously this is work in progress, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby said, but some elements of the arrangements are causing acute concern, not just to noble Lords but to the public at large. The one that causes most concern is the fact that the virtual proceedings will not be broadcast and that until at least two weeks’ time it will not be possible for the public to observe what is going on, which is a breach of all precedent in parliamentary proceedings and a matter of very great concern. Will the Chief Whip tell the House the intention of the Government and the Procedure Committee in respect of the publication and broadcast of the virtual proceedings?

I assume, although it does not feature in what are effectively the new Standing Orders, that all proceedings of the virtual House will be published in Hansard in the normal way the following day. Will the Chief Whip clarify that that will be the case? Will he also say whether it is the case that the reason why the proceedings cannot be broadcast at the start of the virtual House in two hours’ time is that we are using Microsoft Teams rather than Zoom, and that if we were using Zoom, as the House of Commons is doing, it would be possible to broadcast the proceedings? If that is the case, what is the mechanism by which broadcasting will be possible in a fortnight’s time, assuming that that is the intention? Does the Chief Whip agree that for anything other than a very short period while technical difficulties are sorted out, it is absolutely unacceptable that the proceedings of this House are not broadcast and are not open to members of the public at the time that they take place?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Adonis

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, this amendment simply asserts a long-established principle of British practice and law, namely that public bodies are created via primary legislation. There are good reasons for this principle. Public bodies perform important functions. They cost money to establish and run, and they can often themselves levy fees and charges or bring enforcement actions in the courts. They typically have quite a big impact on the people and organisations that they regulate. They are, in short, important. They should not be capable of being established via secondary legislation for the simple reason that such legislation does not allow their purposes, scope and operating practices to be subject to adequate debate.

In the Commons, debate on any statutory instrument is limited to 90 minutes. While we can take slightly longer in your Lordships’ House, the nature of statutory instruments, as the Minister knows, is that they can only be approved unamended or rejected outright, except in the most extreme circumstances. If we attempt, as we very rarely do, to reject them outright, we are accused by the Government of exceeding our powers, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is wheeled out to threaten us with dire consequences.

I had rather hoped that the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, who had planned to be in his place, was in his place, because he wrote the Cabinet Office guidance which clearly explains to Ministers that they should use primary legislation when establishing public bodies. However, in order to check whether I was right in thinking that it was normal practice to establish public bodies by primary legislation, I had a look at the public bodies that the Government proposed to abolish in the Public Bodies Act. These were a very wide range, from the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council to the Victims’ Advisory Panel.

I asked the Library to discover by what power this random cross-section of public bodies had been established. Of the 34 listed in Schedule 1 to the Bill they looked at 27. They were without exception established by primary legislation, and while it is unsurprising in the case of larger entities such as the Competition Service—established by the Enterprise Act 2002—it was also the case with relatively insignificant ones such as the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, established by the Forestry Act 1967, or the Railway Heritage Committee, established by the Railway Heritage Act 1996. So what the Government are proposing in the Bill is without precedent. Certainly, any body established to fill a gap created by our exit from the EU would be more important than some of those I have already mentioned.

Is such a departure justified? I do not, as a matter of principle, believe that it is, but if it were to be justified, the only grounds I could imagine the Government plausibly advancing were that there were simply far too many bodies to be established by primary legislation by exit day. At first sight this argument looks as though it might have some merit. There are, excluding the EU’s core institutions such as the Commission and the Parliament, some 54 other EU bodies described by the EU as,

“specialised agencies and decentralised bodies”.

Virtually all of them are set out in Amendment 263, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. But the truth is that we will not need to replicate anything like that number.

Clearly, we will not need to replicate the functions of the European Police College, or the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, or the European Institute for Gender Equality. We will not need to create new bodies in the area of financial regulation. In some cases, the question of whether we need to create new bodies or not is extremely unclear. The Prime Minister, in her speech last week, suggested we would be seeking associate membership of three bodies, which we are already members of by virtue of our European membership—namely, the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency. It is clear that, if we stayed in those bodies, the need to replicate them would be very small, if needed at all. However, the negotiating mandate published today by the European Council states that:

“The European Council further reiterates that the Union will preserve its autonomy as regards its decision making and excludes participation of the United Kingdom as a third country to EU institutions, agencies or bodies”.


It seems that, since the point at which I first drafted my speech for this evening, we may need to create three more bodies than I had originally envisaged. None the less, the total number we are talking about is substantially smaller than 54 and, almost certainly, is less than 10. Indeed the Government have already admitted that some bodies which will need to be created, will be created by primary legislation. We heard earlier today, when we were talking about environmental protections, that there will be an environmental protection Bill with a new environmental body created within it which replicates some of the functions of European environmental agencies.

So, despite the lack of clarity, we are talking about a relatively small number of bodies for which primary legislation should be needed—and there is almost certainly time for that legislation. Before leaving the subject, I would like to refer back to the debate we had earlier, when we discussed Euratom, and also discussed Amendment 263 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. That debate asked an extremely important question of the Government, which was: will they publish strategies explaining how these various bodies are to be replicated, or not replicated, and what we should do to fill any gaps, so that we know what is happening? The answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, consisted of a single sentence. He said that it,

“would be neither helpful to Parliament, nor in the national interest”.—[Official Report, 21/2/18; col. 252.]

I suggest to the noble Lord that both those statements were false. It will be in the interest of Parliament to know how the Government intend to fill gaps in respect of public bodies caused by our leaving the EU. For the noble Lord to assume that he knows what is in the interest of Parliament is rather extraordinary. What he really means is that it is not in the interest of the Government to say what they will do to fill the gaps, because they clearly do not know. They do not know where they will get to in the negotiations and I suspect that, regarding some of these bodies, they do not know, full stop. I invite the Minister in his reply this evening to be a bit more gracious towards the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and his suggestion, and to commit the Government to come forward with some suggestions as to how they are going to fill the gaps that they are about to create.

On the amendment itself, it is very straightforward. There is a well-established principle in British practice and law that public bodies are established by primary legislation. The Government are seeking to tear up that convention for no good reason and they should desist.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the difficulty with having been in this House for a number of years is that all these debates come round and round. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was right in saying that this is the first time we have been faced with sweeping powers for Governments to reform public bodies by secondary legislation. He may remember that one of the first acts of the coalition Government in 2010 was to introduce the Public Bodies Bill. I vividly remember the debates on that Bill because it gave sweeping powers to the Government to abolish public bodies by statutory instrument. Because it is the job of the Opposition to oppose draconian attempts by Governments to seize Henry VIII powers, those of us on this side of the House made exactly the same speech as the noble Lord, who was then sitting on the Bench opposite, has made, saying why that should not happen.

There was then one of those classic showdowns between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. From memory, it centred on whether the Youth Justice Board, which at that time was threatened with abolition, should be capable of being abolished and whether it should be done by primary or secondary legislation. We all thought that was a very bad idea because it was doing such a brilliant job of dealing with the problem of young offender institutions. I believe we saved the Youth Justice Board, and all the brilliant developments in penal policy that we have seen in this country in the last eight years, which have been such a phenomenal success, are no doubt due to its survival at the insistence of the House of Lords in 2010.

The proposal put forward by the noble Lord is all immensely worthy and I obviously support everything he has said. The power grab by the Government which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who I see is now back in his place, is trying to undertake is utterly reprehensible. I thought I heard the noble Baroness say earlier that the Government are prepared to move on this. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have been speaking so that we can bank this great act of liberalism on the part of the noble Lord. It will be the first one that we have heard since he assumed his current place but we would welcome it greatly.

I simply note that in the great scheme of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, this is a small issue. It is a classic House of Lords issue where we will probably achieve a great victory. It will make no difference whatever in the great scheme of things but I suppose that is why we are here.

Greater Manchester

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Adonis

Thursday 27th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, a key part of the Greater Manchester deal is public bus franchising, which is a good Labour Party policy. Can the Minister confirm that this has been a huge success in London, where it has led to a doubling in bus passenger numbers over the last 10 years? We confidently expect that it will do the same in Manchester, so will he confirm that the same offer will be available to other cities that request it of the Government?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I can, certainly in terms of franchised bus services and for integrated smart ticketing across all modes of transport in Greater Manchester, which has been a success in London. The Government have made it clear that if other cities wish to follow the Manchester model, requests to do so will be sympathetically received.

Future Investment

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Adonis

Thursday 27th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his tour d’horizon. He asked why the Minister for infrastructure is not here. There are two reasons why he is not here: first, in the spirit of the coalition, I am repeating the Statement as my colleague Danny Alexander made it in the other place; and secondly, the Minister for infrastructure is spending every moment of his waking hours ensuring that the infrastructure programme moves forward more rapidly.

[Lord Adonis]

Does the Minister not regard himself as accountable to this House?

[Lord Newby]

The Minister for infrastructure does regard himself as accountable to this House; that is why he made the Statement here yesterday and why he will make further contributions to the work of your Lordships’ House over the next few weeks.

The noble Lord made a number of scathing comments about the forward projections in the infrastructure programme. Perhaps I may remind the House that this is a proposal for long-term planning for infrastructure. What was the long-term legacy left by the previous Government of whom the noble Lord was a member? It consisted of a note that said, “There is no more money left”. His Government presided over what we now know was a GDP falling by 7.2%, which we have spent the last three years turning round. We are now doing what everyone involved in infrastructure wants to happen—that we set out a long-term, credible plan for infrastructure development. He talks about the level of planning and the expenditure planned. However, this Government, and these plans, would generate a degree of expenditure on capital investment and infrastructure over this decade that is greater than that achieved over the lifetime of the last Labour Government. These are ambitious plans that we are determined to carry out.

The noble Lord raised a very important point about the speed at which things happen. This is one of the reasons why my noble friend Lord Deighton is now part of the Government and why, for the first time, we are setting up in each department dedicated teams with commercial experience to enable infrastructure expenditure to take place on a sensible and sustainable basis.

The noble Lord talked, for example, about schools. We are delivering a school building programme with a cost per school that is 40% less than was achieved under the previous Government. This is absolutely essential if we are to undertake the degree of new expenditure required.

The noble Lord talked about affordable housing. This Government will deliver more affordable housing than the last Labour Government, and in much worse economic times. The noble Lord talked about whether plans to stimulate the housing market and house purchases had been successful. He will know that the announcements made by the Chancellor at the general election have already resulted in many people who would otherwise not be able to afford a deposit for a house, being able to get a house. Not only are mortgage approvals at their highest level for a considerable time but private sector housebuilders are now saying that they are making significantly enhanced plans to increase housebuilding. These are real, positive developments in an area where everybody agrees we needed to do more over a number of decades, and now we are doing more.

The noble Lord raised a number of questions about rail. He asked why we have not got an agreed route for Crossrail 2. We are looking at developing the route and at the detailed feasibility plans for Crossrail 2. I remind the noble Lord that we are in charge of the biggest rail construction programme since Victorian times—not just High Speed 2, but also a huge electrification programme that completely puts into the shade anything achieved by his Government. As for the pace of High Speed 2, we are bringing forward the hybrid Bill and a paving Bill.

The main reason for the delay on High Speed 2 is, as he knows, that we have undertaken a huge public consultation. Many aspects of the scheme have been changed because very strong public opinion was expressed against certain aspects of the original programme. For example, there will now be more tunnelling. Is he saying that he would rather we tried to bulldoze the whole thing forward without that consultation and without ensuring that when the scheme goes ahead, it is done with the minimum of disruption to the communities through which the railway will pass?

I know that the noble Lord has considerable interest in the A14. This is a programme that will cost £1 billion. We have announced today more detail about the balance of funding and the fact that we are now going to be getting £100 million from the local authorities that stand to benefit from the road. He said that he was not sure whether it is still planned to toll the road. As the document makes clear, it is still the plan to toll it, but the details of how that will be done have yet to be finally worked out. I am sure that he will barely be able to contain himself until they are.

The noble Lord said that there is a gaping black hole in our airport policy. There is no gaping black hole in our airport policy; rather a process is under way which will lead to proposals for a new hub airport in the south-east—

Property: Commonhold

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Adonis

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

I absolutely agree with the need for joined-up government. As noble Lords would expect me to say, on a whole raft of housing initiatives, not least in relation to the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act, the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government are working extremely closely together.

I understand why the noble Baroness is such a keen proponent of commonholds, but between 2002 and the present day, there have been only 15 commonhold developments in England and Wales comprising a mere 161 units.

[Lord Adonis]

Has the Minister seen today’s Financial Times, which reports:

“While the government had hoped that pension funds would invest … £2 billion”,

in infrastructure,

“by early next year, a year of talks has so far raised just £700 million”?

When does the Minister expect to raise the missing £1.3 billion?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the initial £700 million consists of a commitment by a significant number of pension funds to put in £100 million each as a starter. We are working very hard with them to scale up the programme, but it is a new programme. Pension funds have never done this kind of thing before and, not surprisingly, they want to dip their toe in the water before they immerse themselves more fully. I am very confident that they will see this initial £700 million as an effective investment, and then they will rapidly scale it up in the way that the noble Lord wishes.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Lord Newby and Lord Adonis

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

That is a philosophical question, almost. When is a menu a plan and when is it not a plan? If I am making a dish, it very often lists a number of things that are absolutely required to make a successful dish but it does not necessarily say in what order I need to chop them up. The menu taken together would undoubtedly represent the implementation of a very significant plan.

[Lord Adonis]

Is the Minister not confusing a menu with a recipe? A recipe is the plan; a menu is options which then lead to recipes thereafter, if I can be philosophical.

[Lord Newby]

I am always in awe of the culinary skills of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and am extremely grateful for that way of looking at it. However, whether it is a plan, recipe, menu, or none of the above, the key thing is that, as far as risk is concerned, which was the second question that I wanted to address, the Treasury will be responsible for managing the risk and assumes the contingent liabilities. Value for money, as I said earlier, is key.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked about the pension infrastructure platform, about which I should perhaps have said more. As he may know, last week, seven pension funds announced that they would be initial subscribers to the platform. They will each invest at least £100 million. We hope that the system will be up and running early next year and that it will be the first element of a much larger fund. As to why we think that pension funds might now get involved in this kind of investment whereas they have not in the past, the answer is that, in the past, they have been able to get better returns through conventional means of investing the money. At the moment, with interest rates so low, they are getting very low returns. The other problem that they have had is that, where they have gone via private equity houses which have managed infrastructure programmes, they have often found that the programmes have not worked very well and that they have been charged an arm and a leg for it. So this is a way for the funds, with support from the Treasury, to get into what could be very important new form of investment without what they have seen as being the unreasonable cost of going down a purely private sector route.

The noble Lord also asked about the relationship between this Bill and the energy Bill. The purpose of the energy Bill is to set a framework for investment in the energy sector over the medium term. Once the energy Bill, which will come forward relatively soon, is enacted, and against the framework that that Bill sets out, people looking to invest in the energy sector can form a view about what they want to do and individual projects will be eligible for support under the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, started with three nonsenses and will not be surprised that the Government do not agree absolutely with everything that he said. I find it almost incredible to think that if the Government had not been seen to get the fiscal position under control, interest rates would not have gone up. Even if they had not gone up to the levels that they are at in Greece or Spain, a single percentage point increase in interest rates, among other things, costs mortgage holders in the UK an extra £12 billion a year and would over the course of a Parliament, with all other things being equal, cost the Government about £25 billion. These are very important considerations. Interest rates would almost certainly have been higher if we had turned on the tap.

On his proposal for a British investment bank which would raise money in the private market, the noble Lord will not be surprised to know that the Treasury view is that, if that bit of the state is raising money in the private market and conventional government borrowing is happening in the same private market at the same time, the markets will judge the pair of them together as a common pool of demand from the UK Government. Therefore, we could not segregate borrowing for a British investment bank without it having consequences for the way in which all government borrowing was viewed.

The noble Lord asked how many of the net gains in employment were self-employed or part time. There is a false assumption that working for oneself or working part time are somehow second-class things to do or things that people do not necessarily choose to do. Some people are forced to do one or the other. However, when I was made redundant in the last property crash in 1992, I in effect became self-employed by setting up my own company and it was one of the better things that I have ever done. It did not mean that I was economically out of the market or that I was not able to grow anything. Many people who become self-employed find that they are successfully self-employed. Equally, many people who work part time—and even the Guardian accepts that the figure is at least 80%—do so through choice rather than because they are forced to.