King’s Speech

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to be asked to deliver this speech. It is also a pleasure, since I am joined by my noble friend Lady Hazarika as seconder to this speech. This will be news to noble Lords, but we were born in the same county in Lanarkshire. We were born in the same town in Lanarkshire. Indeed, we were born in the same hospital in the same town in Lanarkshire—although, sadly, the merest glance will confirm that it was not in the same decade.

I cannot pretend to your Lordships, and nor would my noble friend, that Lanarkshire politics is a sort of preparatory school for the refinement of the House of Lords. Indeed, I was prompted to think about Lanarkshire politics this morning when I noticed in the ceremonial guide that the Gentlemen at Arms were requested to hand in their axes after the meeting. Certainly, my noble friend Lady Hazarika, among others, will know of the unfortunate tale of the leader of the council in Lanarkshire who was so ground down by the internecine warfare in his council that he was eventually hospitalised and received a get well card which read, “The Labour group wish you a speedy recovery by 18 votes to 12, with nine abstentions”.

There is no such lack of empathy in this House. Indeed, I owe much to the courtesy and assistance of so many noble Lords in this Chamber. I cannot mention them all, but there are certainly two. I will mention the noble Lord, Lord Soames, who, as Armed Forces Minister, reached across the Chamber of the House of Commons and gave me such wonderful help, advice and encouragement when I was a new shadow defence spokesman that I ended up with his job. I thank him for that.

The other noble Lord cannot be with us today, but I want to record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Kinnock, not only because he introduced me to parliamentary politics but for his courage and leadership against Labour’s first bout of infantile leftism in 1983—coincidentally, the year that Michael Gove briefly joined the Labour Party. Without the leadership of my noble friend Lord Kinnock, there would have been no future Labour Governments. I have to say that, without people like that, I would not be moving this humble Address today. Therefore, I do not approach today’s programme for government in a tribal fashion; I commend it to the whole House.

There may be some noble Lords who, having known me for some years—I see the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, laughing in unison—think that I cannot reach across party boundaries. For those sceptical of my qualifications to make such an appeal, I can tell them that I am, as far as I am aware, the only Labour defence spokesman ever to have addressed a Conservative audience in the Carlton Club. I will tell noble Lords what happened. At the end of an official defence visit to Cyprus, on our half-day of rest and recreation as we all relaxed around the pool of the spa, as you do, I was challenged, in the pool, by that delightfully eccentric Conservative MP Lady Olga Maitland. She challenged me to address her organisation Families for NATO, more widely known as “Babies for the Bomb”. I was happy to do so. I was less happy when she took to explaining to the bemused Tory audience in the Carlton Club that the only reason this Labour stalwart had accepted the invitation was that when she tendered it and I accepted it in Cyprus, in her words “Neither of us was fully clothed”. I have to say I am not suggesting this as a template for future government relations.

Of course, there are areas of controversy in the King’s Speech—it is a very full programme—but I believe that there is much that should be given a fair wind by all sides in this Chamber: on planning, infrastructure and economic growth; on industrial strategy and local devolution; on clean energy and children’s well-being; on safer streets and stronger borders; on reforming our public services, which is desperately needed; and on restoring our capability in national defence. I believe that it is a solid foundation on which to bring about the reset that our new Prime Minister mentioned on his first day in office.

It will fall to my noble friend Lady Smith to take this programme forward. I have to say she has a hard act to follow. She follows a Leader in this Chamber whose patience and courtesy seemed to me at times—how can I put it?—too good to be True.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

But I know that my noble friend Lady Smith is up to the task because, in my view, what Churchill said of military leadership also applies in politics:

“Without the title deeds of positive achievement no one”


has the power or the right to give clear leadership. I believe that my noble friend holds those title deeds, and not only through her service in this Chamber. I know that, as my Minister in Northern Ireland, she led and commandeered not one, not two, not three but four departments of state. So I warn my colleagues on the Front Bench: keep a tight grip on your portfolios.

There are many of our former colleagues that all of us would have wished to see here today—particularly on these Benches, if I might say so, because of the new Labour Government. There are too many to mention in full but, personally, I will miss the late Baroness McDonagh. She was respected and loved by so many of us. It is a tragedy that she did not live to see the Labour Government that she did so much to achieve.

There is now a huge responsibility on that Government, not just in implementing legislation in singular Acts that pass through this Chamber but in restoring faith in politics. As we cast an eye over our continent, we can all see the spectre of those three horsemen of extremism: economic instability; a contempt for the whole political class; and foreigners to blame. We do not need a crystal ball; we have all read the history books. These conditions have always been the harbingers of extremism. Even now, it is sweeping across Europe. For now, we have escaped it, but we may not always escape it. The next few years will determine that. It falls to us to plant the flag of democracy, including social democracy, firmly in the ground and to defend it. Above all, we need to persuade the British people to trust government and politicians a bit more through our integrity, our actions, our attitudes and our service.

So as the lodestar for the coming years, we could not choose a better one than the final words of the final speech of the late John Smith, given the night before he died:

“the opportunity to serve … that is all we ask”.

Surely that should be sufficient for all of us. I beg to move.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Compensation Scheme

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I have no doubt that the same thought has occurred to many of your Lordships. The systemic moral failings exposed by Sir Brian Langstaff in relation to infected blood raise profound questions about the defensive culture of government and the public services at every level. The findings of this recent report undoubtedly have a resonance with a number of findings in other reports on high-profile calamities, and this issue merits deep reflection and honest thinking across government and the public sector.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, as a former Secretary of State for Health, I associate myself completely with the expressions of regret and apology issued by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition and, indeed, my noble friend Lady Primarolo today. As far as compensation is concerned, as Secretary of State I managed to give some financial assistance to those suffering from hep C, but only by reversing a very long-standing policy against huge resistance. It has been noted that civil servants are sometimes unwilling to change. What has not been noted is that one institution in government has the right to prevent such things being done but does not carry responsibility if there is a mistake: the Treasury. I warn the Minister now, if he is here after 5 pm today, that the Treasury will always try to find a way, because it does not recognise moral compulsion—but that should be as important to us as legal liability.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord’s words will resonate with anyone in this Chamber who has had the privilege of ministerial responsibility. Having said that, I do not think we should necessarily point the finger solely at the Treasury when it comes to the responsibility that lies at every level of government in this terrible disaster.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, that last remark takes me back to the memoir writers. We shall see whether the big stick played its part. As I said—I am grateful to the noble Baroness opposite for also saying this—it is absolutely right and reasonable that all parties in Northern Ireland should look very carefully at the text and the details that the Government have laid out. That is why we have sought to lay out a detailed text in co-operation with the European Union. Of course this is better than the Northern Ireland protocol. I am delighted that that is the case, and I clearly agree with what my noble friend said on that point.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an occasion for bringing the House together rather than dividing it, given the importance of this issue. For my part, I have no hesitation in congratulating the Government and all the Ministers who were involved—including those on the Front Bench—on what I think is quite a stunning success. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said earlier, two successes in two days is quite a record at the moment.

I would merely make a couple of comments on the Stormont brake. The first is that it is a major step forward in negotiations with the European Union but, as I understand it, it can work only if there is an Assembly sitting, as has been said. Effectively, not to have that Assembly sitting snatches defeat from the jaws of success and allows the EU to impose anything it likes. I know that our colleagues in the DUP will be considering this, and that is one of the aspects they will wish to look at. I will say no more on that. The second point is that the brake is a sort of sudden, 100% brake—a veto —even if the Assembly is sitting. Is there not a mechanism for allowing consultation prior to a brake being used, or prior to the EU bringing in legislation? If there is the possibility of that, could we look at what mechanism we might have for discussing this?

[Lord True (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his opening remark, from his long personal perspective of service. That is why I said I did not want to put anybody in a box on this occasion; I think time, space and consideration are extremely important.

As far as the brake is concerned, the noble Lord is of course right to say that it will need the Stormont Executive to be in place. We believe that this agreement could mark a turning point for Northern Ireland and potentially puts power back into the hands of the people of Northern Ireland, where it always should be and should have been, and a restored and functioning Executive are important. To repeat, it is now for the parties to decide how they want to move forward with that mechanism. The advantage of the brake over what we had before is that it can be applied to points of detail, provided they have a significant impact, potentially, on the people of Northern Ireland; whereas, with the protocol, it was all or nothing, throwing a lot of stuff out. Within the process of the brake, which I am sure will be carefully examined over the coming days and weeks, there are various points for discussion and scrutiny.

Covid-19

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I completely agree that we have a duty of care, which is why we have implemented a whole range of measures to which noble Lords were alerted earlier this week. It would be a great disservice to the whole commission to suggest that that is not at the front and centre of what we are doing, but we are trying to balance that with being able to work in an effective manner—noble Lords made it clear that they did not believe that hybrid working was as effective as being here—and we are meeting regularly to assess the situation as things happen. We are asking millions of people to go to work in such circumstances. I think we should show by example, but I also genuinely believe that we are providing a safe working environment here for both Peers and staff.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, given the chronic shortage of lateral flow tests, can the noble Baroness confirm press reports over the Christmas and new year period that no sooner had one of the major distributors received 2.5 million lateral flow tests then it went on holiday for a week? Has there been any follow-up on that to discover whether that was an isolated incident, or has it been a recurrent pattern?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

The noble Lord is right: there was a reduction in capacity over Christmas. I am sure that conversations are being had, but I go back to the point that I made earlier: in the next couple of months, we are tripling the supply of lateral flow tests from 100 million under our pre-omicron plan to 300 million a month to ensure that we have the testing capacity that we need.

Questions for Written Answers

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, it is clearly far from ideal that some Members of this House, including the noble Baroness, have waited as long as they have for Written Answers. In ordinary circumstances, it would be completely unacceptable. I am sorry that it has happened. All departments have been under pressure during the Covid emergency; even so, I can tell the House that in January this year 84% of Written Questions from your Lordships were answered on time. It is perhaps worth my saying that it is open to any noble Lord who is unsatisfied with an Answer they receive to ask a follow-up Question.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, but this is not just an isolated complaint; it has become more of an established pattern that is not confined to Written Questions, important though they are. Select Committee reports are now routinely overdue. I am afraid it cannot all be blamed on Covid-19; complaints about delays in Questions predate it, as do the consistent overruns in responses to Select Committee reports, from as far back as the 2015-17 Session. This is now a systemic problem. Will the Minister institute a thorough review into this matter and report back to your Lordships’ House?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and shall certainly take his comments on board and transmit them to members of my Front Bench and the usual channels. I am aware that there is concern about the matters he raised, which run more widely than simply Questions for Written Answer.

Business of the House

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

I am very grateful to my noble friend, particularly with her great experience in the other place. I never had the privilege of serving there, but I remember that in 1975, when I was a young researcher, the late, great Michael Foot—a remarkable parliamentarian, though not necessarily always the greatest Minister—introduced five guillotine Motions on the Floor of the House of Commons in one day. That was considered such a sensational and shocking thing to do that it was on the front pages of the newspapers, and people cried “Liberty”. And here we are, in my lifetime, as my noble friend just pointed out, we now see the House of Commons treated as the lapdog when it comes to whoever is in control, whether it is the Government—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I have listened with great intent and attention to the passion of the noble Lord’s principles regarding curtailment of discussion. Is he intending to say a word about the fundamental and ultimate guillotine, which is the closure of Parliament through proroguing, which is the very reason that we have been forced into our current circumstances?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, there does not seem a lot of point, particularly in view of the extremely helpful and constructive remarks from my noble friend Lord True, in continuing on this particular path. Surely other business on the Order Paper could be dealt with. I personally think that an adjournment during pleasure is by far the most sensible solution.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, may I seek clarification from what was at least a partially constructive description of what might develop? I agree with everyone else that the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Cormack and Lord Strathclyde, as well as other noble Lords, have displayed the spirit of the House. The Chief Whip referred to pending events in the House of Commons tonight. I can see that it is absolutely essential that we know what is happening with the Bill that will come here, but was he including in his embrace—in that precondition—what might happen as regards, say, a general election? If so, what is that to do with the conduct of this House or that Bill?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am not quite clear what the noble Lord means. As he rightly said, that includes the Bill, which will be voted on later—soon, I expect. Secondly, there will be a vote on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. We would like to know how that goes as well.

European Council

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The Government’s position is that we will work towards a deal which is in the best interests of the UK and the EU. That is why we will continue to try to ensure that we get that vote, and get the deal through, so that we can leave in an orderly fashion.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Would the noble Baroness help me here, with a process of elimination? I am slightly confused. Since the Prime Minister says that there is no chance of any change to the withdrawal deal, and since the Speaker in the other place says that there is no chance of a Motion being brought back without fundamental changes to its substance, and therefore the deal, that would seem to preclude bringing the same Motion back for the third time. First, could the noble Baroness explain why the Prime Minister thinks she can bring that Motion back without the substantial changes which, as she says, would be utterly opposed by the European Union? Secondly, irrespective of what the House of Commons votes for this or next week, since there is no chance of substantial changes to the deal, that is not a substantial platform for moving forward between now and April. Does everything not point to the conclusion that there either has to be a revocation or a very long extension of the present timeframe, to allow for something substantial, such as a general election or another referendum?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The Council formally endorsed the legal instrument relating to the withdrawal agreement and the joint statement supplementing the political declaration. There was further movement at the Council with this formal approval, so that is a change to the withdrawal agreement since the last vote.

Leaving the European Union

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am sorry that that is the view of the noble Lord. The exchange of letters does set out four key assurances. We believe that progress has been made. I repeat, as we have repeated constantly over the past few months, that neither the UK nor the EU wants the backstop to happen. It is an insurance policy. We and the EU have been very clear that there are alternatives to the backstop, and the House of Commons will be given a chance to discuss those if we do not have our future relationship in place—which we are all working hard to do and which the EU has committed again in these letters to work towards.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has suggested that the biggest threat to the unity of the United Kingdom would be to have a second referendum. Will she reflect on the fact that actually the biggest threat to the United Kingdom would be if the Government were to create the circumstances in which those who wished to break up the United Kingdom were better placed to win such a referendum, particularly if the Government followed a course of action that was opposed by the people of Scotland and the people of Northern Ireland? Does she recall that there is a thing called unintended consequences? However much the Government wish—as we in this House wish—to retain the unity of the United Kingdom, they are in grave danger of creating circumstances in which, if a referendum is held in other parts of the UK, that unity may be put under threat.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord is right—which is exactly why the Prime Minister has been working constantly and hard to get a deal on the table that both preserves the unity of the UK and allows us a strong relationship with the EU. That is the deal that is on the table. We are now asking MPs to vote for that deal so that we can move forward and start focusing on the strong future relationship with the EU that we want so that we can develop that partnership.

Exiting the European Union

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord is right that specific conditions are set out in the EU withdrawal Act, and we will abide by them. The final two days of debate and subsequent vote in the House of Commons are being deferred to a later date and the amendments that have been tabled will stand when the debate is resumed. As I made clear to the noble Lord, our position on Article 50 has not changed.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

I give way to the elderly gentleman.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, my noble friend spoke of the possibility of not reaching an agreement with our friends in the European Union. In that event, does that also imply that we would not be paying them £39 billion ransom money?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said, other leaders have indicated that they are open to further discussion on this issue and we remain committed to getting a deal. However, my noble friend is right that in the unlikely event that we leave the EU without a deal, the financial settlement as set out in the withdrawal agreement would no longer apply as there would be no withdrawal agreement.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that her two arguments against putting this back to the people—that is, first, that the people have already voted and cannot be reconsulted and, secondly, that somehow any vote would divide the nation—are perfect arguments for abolishing general elections? That is precisely what a general election is: it is a reconsultation—after a period, in the light of experience and further information—by asking the people again. Can she tell us why those principles apply to a second referendum but do not apply to general elections?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

At the last general election both main parties said that they would respect the result of the referendum and deliver Brexit. We are doing that.

Brexit: Negotiations

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

On the noble Lord’s first question, I answered it in my reply to my noble friend’s question when I said that we intend to have the future relationship come into force by the end of 2020. On the noble Lord’s second point, only the CJEU can bind the EU on the interpretation of EU law, so we have agreed that where a dispute raises a question of interpretation of EU law, the arbitration panel can refer this question to the CJEU for interpretation. What it cannot do is ask the CJEU to resolve the dispute. That will always be done by the independent arbitration panel. An ability for the CJEU to provide an interpretation of EU law is not the same as resolving disputes. The EU has been clear that that must fall to an independent arbitration panel. This respects the principle that the court of one party cannot resolve disputes between the two.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, first of all, I find this a comprehensive and interesting list of subjects for future discussion—but that is all it is. I caution the Minister against overselling it as something else. That—the misrepresentations—was part of the problem with the original referendum. For instance, the noble Baroness says:

“It ends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK”,


but this declaration does no such thing. It is not a deal, even leaving aside the fact that the 27 others have not agreed it yet. Even when they have agreed it, it will not be a deal; it will not be an agreement—or rather, it will be an agreement to look for an agreement at some future stage. So will the Minister please not oversell it?

On the European Court of Justice, I am not a lawyer—as I have said, that is neither a boast nor a complaint—but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. What the Minister says is just not true. She is inadvertently misreading this. Not only does paragraph 132 say:

“The Parties will base arrangements for dispute settlement and enforcement on those provided for the Withdrawal Agreement”,


but paragraph 134 says:

“Should a dispute raise a question of interpretation of Union law, which may also be indicated by either Party, the arbitration panel should refer the question to the CJEU as the sole arbiter of Union law, for a binding ruling”.


Crucially, it then goes on to say:

“The arbitration panel should decide the dispute in accordance with the ruling given by the CJEU”.


So it does not give just a ruling, it gives a binding ruling, which the arbitration panel must decide in accordance with the ruling given by the European Court of Justice.

I am not asking for a legal answer at present. All I ask is that Ministers be very careful that they do not try to oversell this as somehow a deal that has been done and agreed. It is a framework for future discussion, kicking the can down the road; that may be necessary but it is no more than that, so I ask the Minister not to misrepresent it.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I think I was clear; I hope I was. I said that it sets out a clear vision and is a framework for the future relationship between the UK and the EU, and that it provides the negotiating instructions that will aim to deliver the full legal agreement by the end of 2020. We are on both sides committed to turning this into a legally binding treaty as soon as possible. In relation to the noble Lord’s points about the CJEU, I gave the answer to the noble Lord and I can only say again that an ability for the CJEU to provide an interpretation of EU law is not the same as resolving disputes.