Business of the House

Debate between Lord Robathan and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I absolutely agree, and it is questionable whether it is necessary. My understanding is that the Prime Minister has already indicated that she plans to ask for an extension of our Article 50 period, so we do not need this Bill. I am told that when this point was put to our putative Prime Minister, Sir Oliver Letwin, he said he needed it as an insurance policy. I am sorry, but subverting our constitution for an insurance policy seems a pretty high premium to me.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware of the opinion of the excellent and rather consensual chairman of the House of Commons Procedure Committee? He said the following yesterday:

“The House of Commons is about to pass a major piece of legislation without a Report stage or a substantive Third Reading. If the Government did this, the House would rightly be deeply irritated with them, so the House should find no virtue in its actions this evening”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/19; col. 1211.]

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Indeed, and perhaps even at this late stage the noble Baroness might be prepared to reconsider her Motion. I would be perfectly happy if we had Second Reading today and took the Committee stage another day; there is no great issue here.

The noble Baroness suggested that the amendments had been tabled by people in favour of no deal; that is what she said. As I said at the beginning, this is not actually about the merits; we will get on to those later. As she sought to imply that one was coming from a biased position, I wonder if she would like to look at the pamphlet produced by Sir Stephen Laws and Professor Richard Ekins, entitled Endangering Constitutional Government: The Risks of the House of Commons Taking Control. They also picked up those words I quoted from Oliver Letwin, and this is what they say:

“By those words, Sir Oliver announced his intention to create a constitutional crisis, and invited MPs to join him in a flagrant and destructive attack on our current constitutional settlement. However, even if many MPs resile from the conclusion that the Commons must become the Cabinet, the course of action MPs have now set in motion, with help from the Speaker, is one which undercuts the Government’s capacity to govern and its freedom to set the agenda—to propose policy which Parliament might then choose to resist, adopt or adapt.


If the Commons continues down this path unopposed, the Government will end up in office but unable to govern. The Commons would nominally have confidence in the Government but would in practice not extend to the Government the freedom that such confidence would otherwise entail to carry out any policy initiative. Again, the constitution does not require that Parliament should accept the Government’s proposals. But unless the Government enjoys the initiative in formulating and proposing policy, the country cannot be effectively governed; and the relationship between the political authorities and the people will break down if MPs act in mutually inconsistent ways in performing their dual role both as an electoral college for government and in exercising oversight over the conduct of public affairs”.


What a mess we are in. Members opposite, in this House, of all places, where we have conducted the debate in a civilised manner—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Robathan and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan]

Let the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, intervene.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords—

Ecumenical Marriage Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Robathan and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 23rd February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate and to agree with him. I do so because, as a loyal and active member of the Church of England, I sometimes find that loyalty sorely tested, not least by some in the hierarchy in the Church of England who tend—how can I put this?—to be inclined to the listen less to the views of their congregations and more to the liberal, left-leaning and hand-wringing attitude towards affairs of state with which I find it difficult to agree. However, on this occasion I am delighted to agree with the right reverend Prelate.

This is about ecumenical marriage. My own marriage took place down the road in the Guards’ Chapel and involved both the chaplain of the chapel, who I suppose legally married us, my parents’ excellent priest who remains a great friend, and indeed a great friend of my wife, who is a monk at Ampleforth. It was an ecumenical marriage with Catholic input, and we were very grateful to him for it. I wish to say that I do not oppose anything ecumenical about marriage.

I am also the godfather to two Roman Catholic children. My noble friend Lord Deben expressed his wish that we should be more ecumenical. I should say that they are now both delightful young men, and I am glad to still be their godfather. At the christening of one in Nightingale Square, as I walked across to the church with my friend who is an Anglican but married to a Roman Catholic, he said, “The priest has insisted that all the godparents should be Catholic, so I told him that you were. Could you confirm that if he asks you”? I said, “Actually, no, I am afraid I will not. I will tell him the truth”. Luckily, he did not ask me. I have told this because it is important that we should all take a moderate and reasonable view of ecumenicalism.

I was moved to take part in this debate because I am instinctively uneasy about the measure for three reasons. The first has been much better expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, but it is important that the Church takes the lead and makes decisions in this matter. The Church of England, which is often criticised, is an extremely emollient beast. My noble friend Lord Deben referred to fudge, but it seems to me that the fudge over the christening that I was talking about was just as much fudge as the Church of England ever takes part in. I have always found the Church and bishops to be reasonable.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am trying to follow my noble friend’s argument and looking at the text of the Bill. In Clause 1, subsections (1), (2) and (3), the word “may” appears, not “will”. It is a permissive Bill. Why is he suggesting that this is a direction to the Church?

[Lord Robathan]

My noble friend makes a good point, but I will come to why I am entirely against the measure in a second, if I may.

My point is that it must be for the Church to decide. If the Church brings forward such a measure, as the right reverend Prelate said, then Parliament may decide because of the nature of the established Church. It is of course the national Church—the established Church. One might say that it is a strange historical quirk, but it is not unreasonable to expect it to make decisions on these matters. Indeed, it would be quite wrong for us to try to influence the Church—let it lead on this matter and not us.

I would not presume to instruct the Roman Catholic Church on its doctrine on abortion, homosexuality or whatever it might be, much of which I profoundly disagree with. I do not always agree with everything that my own Church says, but it would not be for me or any other Anglican to dictate to the Roman Catholic Church how it runs its affairs. For instance, we might have a law proposed in this House that the holy water in the font at the entrance to each Catholic church should be tested for bacteria once every day or week or something—and some Anglican churches as well of course—but that would be going well beyond what any Parliament should do.

I should say to my noble friend Lord Deben that I find it somewhat strange that the measure should be proposed by somebody who has actually rejected the Church of England. That is why I am instinctively uneasy about it and would rather follow the lead of the Church of England than someone who does not actually like the Church of England.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Robathan and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan]

My noble friend was a distinguished Cabinet Minister back in the 1990s. Is he not being unduly cynical? Surely he cannot believe that the Government would come up with a shoddy deal such as this.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am tempted to be sanctimonious about this. What I found most risible about the Government’s explanation for their somersault was when Nick Boles, when asked why he had changed his mind, said:

“I urge my hon. Friend to look at the people who spoke in the debate and voted, or very assertively chose not to vote, in support of the Government’s position. They included not just Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe but Lord Forsyth, who supports the same campaign on the European Union that my hon. Friend has supported”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/16; col. 1545.]

I really do resent being cited in support of a very shoddy deal. Later he said—contrary to what my noble friend has been saying—that he did not want to listen to the arguments at all. He said:

“I did not want to listen at all. I am afraid I simply acknowledged that, faced by an array of forces—it is not just led by the noble Lord Burns, but includes most of the Cross Benchers, all the Liberal Democrats, all the members of Labour party and very influential Conservative peers, such as Lord Forsyth, Lord Deben, Lord Balfe and Lord Cormack—neophytes in this game like me perhaps need to concede defeat”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/16; col. 1549.]

This is something I shall quote on many future occasions.

Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding

Debate between Lord Robathan and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, having been a member of the committee, I pay tribute to the Cross-Benchers, such as the noble Earl who has just spoken, for their measured contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his skilful handling of the committee, which must not have always been easy, and his very good humour. As a new Member of this House, I have noticed that people are sometimes reluctant to intervene. I shall make a short speech and if anybody wishes to challenge me, I would be very happy for them to intervene.

First, I will address the question of opting in or out, and then the second, linked issue of how this will affect Labour Party funding. This discussion of the trade union political levy hinges on one issue alone: is it right in principle for trade unionists to opt in or out of the political levy? I know why the situation is as it is. I know the history. But the world has moved on since the second half of the 19th century.

Nick Boles, the Minister, came to our committee and gave us some very eloquent evidence, which I shall quote at length. He said that,

“there has been a very substantial shift across a whole range of areas of public life and consumer activity towards the idea that it is important, when you are asking someone to make a contribution to some other organisation—it could be a supplier of a good or a charity—that they should actively consent to do so … the consumer rights directive, which was implemented in the UK in 2014 and which applies across the European Union for contracts between a trader and a consumer, reinforces the concept of express consent … pre-ticked boxes are no longer permitted under that directive … Turning to the charitable sector … a review of the approach to self-regulation of fundraising in charities and strongly encouraged that, again, all fundraising organisations should take steps towards adopting a system of ‘opt-in only’ in their communications to donors … The FCA is very clear that when signing up to a financial product, consumers should be provided with clear information and be offered an opportunity to actively consent to a new commitment”.

Would anyone in the Chamber disagree about the principle of active consent—opting in, in this and indeed other fields—in the second decade of the 21st century?

The contributions to the political levy are, frankly, trivial, as we have heard already from the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, so the result is that people do not challenge them. It is just not worth the candle. It is not worth the hassle, after all, for an average of 9p a week—less than £5 a year. But if you multiply that, which the noble Baroness did not do, by nearly 5 million union members, you get not far shy of £24 million a year, of which around half goes to the Labour Party. Can anybody in the Chamber defend that system, where those who vote Conservative, Liberal Democrat or whatever unwittingly give money to a party that they do not support? I opt in to join the Conservative Party, and Conservative associations up and down the land sweat blood each year trying to get members and their subscriptions.

Turning to Labour Party funding, it is not my place to advise the Labour Party, it will be pleased to know, but I would suggest that it gets out and gets more members. We were told by the Guardian in January this year that membership of the party has increased from 202,000 to 388,000 since the general election, so perhaps the party is doing exactly that. I am told that more than 100,000 people paid £3 to vote in the leadership election by becoming registered or affiliated supporters. However, trade union membership is falling rapidly. It is less than half what it was in the winter of discontent. I might again advise the Labour Party: it is not wise to rely on these funds. The party needs to get more trade unionists who are committed to the Labour Party to subscribe properly. Perhaps the standard sub of £47 puts them off. In the Conservative Party it is only £25. I think that is too little, but there you go. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, is in his place, and his review has already started the process of opting in. I will quote—not to him because he will know it backwards—what he said:

“After a transitional period of five years, affiliation fees shall only be accepted on behalf of levy payers who have consented to the payment of such fees”.

Notwithstanding the Motion setting up the committee, the issue of trade union reform is separate from party funding. Indeed, all noble Members will have received the joint union briefing on the Trade Union Bill, which included briefing by USDAW and the NASUWT, both of which have political funds. The briefing did not even mention the opt-in or the opt-out, or political levies or political funding. So those unions saw it as separate. It is, frankly, immoral and unacceptable for any party to be funded unwittingly and unwillingly by people who do not support it. I believe that even those opposite must agree.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Is there not a bit of a dilemma here with company donations made, say, to the Conservative Party, where some of the shareholders may not take the view that they support the Conservative Party?

[Lord Robathan]

My noble friend is absolutely right, although he may be slightly—dare I say?—living in the past. We heard evidence—somebody who was on the committee may correct me—that the amount of public company donations has dropped to a negligible level because of legislation brought in by the last Labour Government.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble friend is absolutely right that the amount has certainly gone down but I thought he was making an argument of principle, not of quantity.

[Lord Robathan]

My noble friend is absolutely right, but of course, in principle, shareholders vote at a company general meeting and the result is that they do not vote for political donations. Of course, one can sell one’s shares, as indeed one can leave a union, but leaving a union may have implications for one’s employment.