Procedure of the House

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I congratulate the Chairman of Committees on an excellent and sympathetic report. However, could he arrange for the Procedure Committee to look at another matter: namely, the accountability of Ministers to this House, particularly the accountability of the noble Lord, Lord Green? I have here a table that shows that his attendance in the current Session was less than 10%; whereas, just to take a random example, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was here nearly 100% of the time. The noble Lord, Lord Green, was absent yesterday when there was a PNQ, which he knew was coming up, about his attendance. He is absent again today. I do not know where he is, but he is certainly not here. However, he is going to make a statement today, not to this House but to Jeff Randall on Sky television.

It is appalling and a discourtesy to this House and to Parliament as a whole when the noble Lord considers that it is appropriate for him to make a statement on television and not to this House. Since we have the noble Lord the Leader of the House here—I shall wait for a reply to the Committee—he will say that at a time when the Prime Minister is under tremendous pressure with his former press adviser and good friend having been charged with very serious offences and when his judgment is in question, it would add to that for his adviser on banking, a senior Minister of State, not to come before this House and be accountable to the place where he ought to be.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I apologise for intervening on this issue, but I wish to say something. I address my remarks to the noble Lord the Leader of the House rather than to the Lord Chairman. In view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Green, is going to be on television this evening and that he has written a letter to Mr Chris Leslie in the House of Commons, I thought it pertinent to raise this matter on the Floor of the House.

As a matter of procedure, the noble Lord the Leader of the House yesterday told your Lordships’ House in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint:

“No Minister needs to be accountable to Parliament for their previous career”.—[Official Report, 23/7/2012; col. 482.]

However, in a letter to my honourable friend the shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Green, does precisely that in giving, as a government Minister in an official letter from a government department, his views on HSBC and what he described as the “failures” of the bank, about which he says, “I share that regret”. If the noble Lord, Lord Green, can make that kind of point in a government letter—let alone what he might say in an interview on Sky television at 7 pm this evening—he should come to this House and make those points here. I therefore invite the Leader of the House, in the light of the actions today of the noble Lord, Lord Green, to make arrangements for the noble Lord, as a Minister and a Member of this House, to take the opportunity to come to this House tomorrow to dispel the questions that are being posed about his ministerial role.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I think that it is worth replying to this. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition was kind enough to give me notice that she would raise this issue. There are two accusations against my noble friend Lord Green. The first is that he has written to Mr Chris Leslie, who is a Member of the House of Commons. The only reason why my noble friend Lord Green has written to Mr Leslie is because Mr Leslie wrote to him and he has simply replied. That strikes me as being entirely the right and correct thing to do.

The second accusation is that my noble friend has not come to this House to answer questions. The reason why my noble friend has not come to this House to answer questions is because none has been put to him on this subject.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made much of the table of attendance and referred to my noble friend Lady Anelay. However, she happens to be the government Chief Whip, and if she was not here practically every day, I would want to know why. Incidentally, I also want to know why the Minister for Trade should spend all his time in here when his job is to do his best, banging the drum for British business—as the noble Lord, Lord Jones, used to remind us—rather than coming here. How many questions has the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, put down in the past 12 months to my noble friend Lord Green on matters of trade? I shall check the record later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, while the noble Lord is here and answering questions, I hope he does not mind my saying this, but I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Green, should have made from BIS the Statement on loan guarantees. For some reason, he was not here, although I gather he was in the House. Could the noble Lord inquire into why that happened? I would rather that the noble Lord, Lord Green, had answered, given that he was the Minister concerned.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this either. I would merely say that I did not write to the noble Lord, Lord Green, because on a couple of occasions I asked for the noble Lord to come to this House, of which he is a Member, to answer questions. Next time I will write to the Minister responsible, because I know that Ministers do not think that it is fitting to come to this House and to be accountable to this House. Clearly, we have to do things by correspondence.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

Can we get a better understanding of this issue? My own memory goes back to two excellent Ministers of Trade: Cecil Parkinson, who is now a Member of this House, and Richard Needham—both of whom will be familiar to many Members of this House. I was rude to them if I ever saw them, because their job was not to be here. At a time when we needed trade and exports, they needed to be out and about promoting British business. The other House respected the fact that they had to lead delegations and had greater impact outside. The more they did, the better they did it. They were very effective Ministers of Trade at a rather successful time for the British economy. If ever we needed a Minister of Trade to be active overseas, it is now. I thought this House would appreciate that.

HSBC: Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2012 Lords Chamber

Tabled By

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the allegations about HSBC made by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the ability of Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint to fulfil his ministerial duties.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government have every confidence in my noble friend Lord Green ability to fulfil his ministerial duties. His experience, expertise and enthusiasm provide great benefit to the UK’s international profile and to the support that UK Trade and Investment provides to British businesses.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that Answer. However, as the noble Lord will be aware, questions have been asked about the present ministerial role of the noble Lord, Lord Green, following the US Senate committee’s findings.

Paragraph 1.2 of the Ministerial Code, which sets out the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, says that:

“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”.

Given that obligation, will the Leader of the House ask the noble Lord, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, to come to your Lordships’ House to place on record what he knew and when about the matters investigated by the US Senate committee, including what steps he took to deal with them? Would such a move not give the noble Lord, Lord Green, the opportunity to dispel once and for all the questions being asked about his present ministerial role?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition. I know that she has been trying to find a PNQ to put to the House and she has managed to do so. I am very glad to be able to respond on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.

There is no urgency in this matter. The investigation started more than two years ago. The report in question was published two weeks ago. There was no evidence of personal wrongdoing of my noble friend; indeed, there was no personal criticism whatever of my noble friend. The investigation is ongoing. As for ministerial accountability, my noble friend Lord Green is accountable to this House—to Parliament—for the work he does as a Minister. However, many Ministers have had previous careers. No Minister needs to be accountable to Parliament for their previous career, only for what they are doing as a Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, as a Minister for trade, my noble friend of course spends a great deal of time overseas. Since he was appointed, he has travelled to 42 countries and visited 73 cities. In his role as Minister of State for Trade and Investment, he has answered a total of 72 Parliamentary Questions, including two Oral Questions out of three that he could have answered. The response to the point raised by the noble Baroness is that if more Questions on trade and investment were put down, I am sure that my noble friend would be very happy to come and answer them.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his answers, but perhaps I may say that I found his initial response to my Question slightly patronising, albeit not in terms of the substance. I table PNQs when I believe that there is a matter of accountability which is of interest to this Parliament as a whole—we are the only House of Parliament sitting at the moment—and when I believe that it is of importance to this nation. I do not do so for personal gratification.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, if the noble Baroness felt that I was in any way seeking to patronise her, I apologise fully.

Arrangement of Business

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the House of Commons rises today, as we all know, and noble Lords may recall that, during the Jubilee Recess when this House sat, the Government announced changes to tax policy to the media rather than to Parliament—that is to say, to our House. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could reassure noble Lords that when the House of Commons has gone into recess any policy announcements will be made to this House, while it is sitting, as we are a House of Parliament, rather than to the media first. We shall be vigilant with regard to any sneaky Statements that might come out.

I also take this opportunity to wish a very happy birthday to the Chief Whip, the noble friend of the Leader of the House.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join in those very happy returns to the Captain of the Honourable Corps of the Gentlemen at Arms.

There is no desire on the Government’s part to produce any sneaky Statements at all when the House of Commons is not sitting. Of course, this House will be sitting next week and any Statements, Urgent Questions or PNQs will be taken in the normal way.

Arrangement of Business

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Myners]

I wish to be helpful to the House. It is also worth pointing out that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, was chairman of the British Bankers’ Association when these manipulations of the BBA’s LIBOR rate were taking place. It is reported that the executive of the BBA was aware that manipulation was taking place but took no action. How can this allow the noble Lord, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, to continue to be a credible adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on banking, a role that he seems to have taken over from the poor noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, for whom we all have a great affection?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I wish to apologise. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Foulkes for bringing these issues to the attention of the House. We have had a very worthwhile discussion but I wish to place on record my thanks to the government Chief Whip. As I understand it, it was at the Opposition’s request that the Statement was promptly at 4 pm, for the convenience of some Members of my Benches and of the whole House. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the Leader of the House when, in fact, I should be the one taking the blame.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am very grateful for that. I have very broad shoulders on these things, but it demonstrates that I made yet another mistake in giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

As for the noble Lord, Lord Myners, let everybody just remember what his role was in all this as a very senior Minister in the Treasury in the previous Government.

EU Council

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon 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?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, perhaps I may clarify to my noble friend that there will be two Statements this afternoon, the second of which will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Sassoon, as is laid out on the screens, and will come immediately after Back-Bench time on this Statement.

As ever, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her remarks. She asked plenty of questions and I shall try to deal with them fully. She expressed dissatisfaction at the Prime Minister having said that there should be an inquiry into banking and the LIBOR problem, because it was the wrong sort of inquiry. She said that her party would put down an amendment to a Bill before this House. She expressed disappointment with what the Government were doing, which is a pity, because I would have thought that one place where there is a good deal of expertise was in Parliament. To have a Joint Committee of both Houses looking at this matter, with Members of our Economics Affairs Committee sitting with their colleagues in the House of Commons, should surely be enormously welcome. It should also be able to respond quickly. We hope that it will get to work straightaway, call witnesses over the next few months and report by Christmas so that recommendations can be included in the Vickers Bill in the New Year. That seems to be an appropriate way forward.

The noble Baroness asked for our thoughts on Syria. She correctly recognised what a difficult situation it is. The situation remains grave, with hundreds of people dying every week. However, the Foreign Secretary was engaged this weekend in intensive talks in Geneva on a transition plan which included the Foreign Ministers of Russia, China, and other countries. The result is one step forward, which is worth having. We agreed with Russia and China that there should be a transitional unity Government in Syria, which should be made up of people from the present Government, the opposition, and other groups on the basis of mutual consent. It would of course exclude President Assad. We must now try very hard to bring this about. We are putting a great deal of energy into doing so, but nobody is under any illusions of just how complex all of this going to be, given the situation that exists in Syria.

The noble Baroness, the Leader of the House—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

If only!

[Lord Strathclyde]

Sorry, the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition, the former Leader of the House, also talked about the Europe of jobs and growth. She said that the Prime Minister could not deliver this in the United Kingdom, and asked why he therefore thought he could deliver it in Europe. That is to completely misunderstand what this Government have been doing, and, of course, to misunderstand quite deliberately. We want to rebalance the economy, with private sector growth taking the place of government deficits. We want prosperity shared across all parts of the UK. We want to become a world leader in advanced manufacturing and knowledge-based industries and services, and to remain the world’s leading centre for financial services. We have done this by cutting corporation tax, ensuring access to finance, dealing with the red-tape challenge, and many other brave and sensible pieces of action which will take the Government forward, from where we were under Labour’s misrule towards long-term growth and prosperity based on real jobs.

The noble Baroness asked about the European Patent Office. She said that it was not going to be based in London. This has been discussed and debated for over 23 years. It is an area in which Britain excels. The Council has decided that the patent office should be based in three parts of the European Union: in London, Paris and Munich. The most significant part of it as far as we are concerned—pharmaceutical and life science industries—will be based here in London. It will bring a turnover of over £100 million-worth in legal services into the United Kingdom.

Much of what the noble Baroness asked about concerned the referendum. I have believed for a long time that the real muddle on European policy lies in the party opposite, and not in our party at all. We said that an in/out referendum is not the answer right now, and we stick to that. A referendum on a choice between the status quo and coming out completely when Europe is changing would be the wrong choice. It would be a bad time to make a decision. Europe is changing a great deal, probably more so currently than it has done for very many years. Indeed, it is entirely right for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to look at how we want to change our relationship with Europe, and as the end point becomes clear, to consult the British people either in a general election or a referendum. I regard that as a very strong position. If the Labour Party disagrees with consulting the British people, they should say so.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for making a Statement to your Lordships' House on the Government’s revised House of Lords Reform Bill, which has been introduced today in the other place and given a First Reading. I am grateful, too, for an advanced sight of the Statement. I thank the Leader and the government Chief Whip for offering to extend to 40 minutes the normal period for Back-Bench contributions to the debate today.

This country is facing enormous difficulties. We are in a double-dip recession; we have no economic growth; unemployment, especially youth unemployment, remains high. The Governor of the Bank of England did not mince his words yesterday when he spoke of the depth of the economic crisis. Further efforts will be made this week at the EU summit to try to resolve the eurozone crisis. We need jobs and we need growth; we need a change of economic strategy. Those are the country’s priorities and those are the Opposition’s priorities. What are the Government’s priorities? Apparently, they centre on further reform of your Lordships’ House. Not only is reform of your Lordships’ House not at the top of the priority list of the people of this country; it is not even at the bottom of the priority list. In fact, it is not on the list at all, because it is not a priority. Even the most positive polling figures suggest that less than a fifth of the people of this country regard further House of Lords reform as in any way urgent. Yet this is what this Government have placed at the heart of their legislative agenda; this is what the Government are focusing on today. Why are the Government making reform of your Lordships' House such a priority in the light of the economic challenges facing us?

We do not from these Benches say that constitutional reform is unimportant. From 1997 onwards in government, we brought forward a serious programme of constitutional reform, including major changes such as devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Constitutional reform, including further reform of the House of Lords, goes to important questions about how Britain is governed. We on these Benches did not seek a Bill on further reform of your Lordships' House to be included in the Government’s legislative programme, but it has been; it is there; and we as the Opposition must respond to it.

Labour’s commitment to a fully elected second Chamber was explicit in its manifesto at the last general election. Labour has a long commitment to reform and has enacted that commitment. We want to see reform, but we want to get that reform right. For the Labour Party, that means a fully elected second Chamber. It means getting the powers and role of the House of Lords right, not only in itself but in relation to the House of Commons. We believe, too, that the issue is of such importance that it should be put to the people of this country in a referendum, a commitment which is strongly supported by the public according to opinion-poll evidence.

We will want to examine in detail the Government’s revised version of the House of Lords Reform Bill. The first version of the Bill, published last year, was a bad Bill. We thought so; the Joint Committee on the Bill thought so; and the alternative report from the Joint Committee’s minority group thought so. Pretty well everyone thought so, apart from the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Government are proposing their revised Bill in the face of serious and searching criticisms of their first attempt. We will need to consider how far this version gets in dealing with the very big questions which need to be resolved, including those about the primacy of the House of Commons. The Government’s revised Bill today attempts to shore up in various ways the wholly discredited Clause 2 of the original Bill, on Commons primacy, by scrapping the provision entirely and replacing it with a statement in the Bill about the applicability of the Parliament Acts. The Bill also repeals the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. Are there any further constitutional implications of repealing the preamble? I look forward to hearing the views on this issue of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith.

On the applicability of the Parliament Acts, can the Leader of the House explain why, in the Government’s response to the report of the Joint Committee, which has also been published today, they refer on page 7 to their response to recommendation 84 of the Joint Committee, on the Parliament Acts, when their responses to the recommendations go from 82 to 86, without recommendation 84 being included at all? That is interesting.

There are also questions about the powers of the second Chamber; about the exact proportion of elected Members, the length of their terms, whether they should be renewable; about the system of election; about the relationship between the Lords and the Commons, about the position of this House in relation to the outcome of a referendum in Scotland on independence; about the place of bishops or other religious representation; about transitional arrangements, and about the costs of the Government’s reforms.

On the question of costs, the Government have, as the Leader of the House said, finally published the costings today on their revised proposals. I note that these include provision for a number of allowances for Members of an elected House, including an accommodation allowance and a staffing allowance. The costings do not, however, include the cost of elections for the House, put separately by the Government at £85.7 million for each of the elections proposed. Will the Leader tell the House what the Government believe the total net cost of all their proposals will be?

Can the Leader of the House explain to Members of your Lordships’ House what the position will be in an elected House in relation to remuneration? The Government have been briefing the media heavily in the past few days that Members of the new elected House will not be paid a salary but will instead have a daily allowance before tax of £300. However, new Section 7A of Clause 46 of the Bill specifies that,

“members of the House of Lords are to be paid … on a monthly basis in arrears”.

Will the Leader of the House clarify which is correct?

Of huge importance to my party and to the Joint Committee, the revised Bill does not contain a referendum. There is little logic in a position which says that we have referendums to decide whether we have city mayors, but not to decide whether to alter radically the composition and structure of our Parliament. We shall see whether the Government’s present non-inclusion of a referendum in the Bill survives whatever parliamentary processes the Bill faces. However, can the Leader of the House say why he believes that 55%—according to the latest opinion poll—of the people of this country are wrong in wanting to have their say on these matters in a referendum?

On these matters, Labour, whether in the other place or in your Lordships’ House, will seek as an Opposition to scrutinise, amend and improve the Bill during its passage through Parliament. Lords reform is a serious issue and we expect the Government to take Parliament seriously, too, in considering it. That is why we want to see proper scrutiny of the Bill in the other place, where it will be taken first. That is why we will oppose in the other place the proposed timetable for the Bill, which would, effectively, guillotine debate. However, we are a party in favour of reform, which is why Ed Miliband also announced yesterday that Labour in the Commons will be voting for a Second Reading of the Bill. For a Bill about which we have real reservations, this is an unusual step for an Opposition. There is indeed plenty of precedent for legislative proposals being opposed at this stage.

For example, in 1999, the party opposite, including 11 members of the current Cabinet, proposed and voted for a reasoned amendment and against the Second Reading of the Labour Government’s 1999 House of Lords Bill on hereditary Peers. We know that there are members of my party, both in this House and the other place, who would wish to vote against the Bill for reasons of principle. I respect those who hold this view, but the shadow Cabinet, of which I am a member, disagrees with them, and Labour will vote for a Second Reading in the other place later this month.

[Noble Lords]

Next month.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

It is next month, forgive me. It is not July—hell.

We know, too, that there are great differences of opinion—vast gulfs of opinion—between the constituent parties of the coalition, and within the ranks of the Conservative Party, both in the other place and in this House. As the Prime Minister said in the other place earlier today, there are those in all parties who oppose further reform of the House of Lords, just as there are those who support further reform. We shall see how those differences emerge as the Bill goes through its Commons stages.

It is likely that those stages will be protracted. The Bill is, I suspect, many months away from coming before this House, if indeed it manages to get out of the Commons. Given the dates for Second Reading in the other place, it is likely that the House of Commons will go into Committee on the Bill when it sits in September. Recently the noble Lord the Leader of the House all but issued as a threat the possibility that this House would have to sit in September to deal with the Financial Services Bill. Can I inform him that in order to deal with a range of matters, such as the Government’s legislative programme and their record on jobs and growth, we on these Benches would welcome sitting in September when the Commons will be deliberating on this Bill. I ask the Leader of the House to arrange now that this House should indeed sit in September to consider these important matters.

On the overall matter of further reform of your Lordships’ House, there are wide differences of opinion across the House. That was clearly demonstrated right across the House in the days of debate we have had on the issue recently, both in considering the report of the Joint Committee and the alternative report and in the days devoted to the constitutional issues during the debate in this Chamber on the gracious Speech. However, what was also demonstrated in those debates was a seriousness about this issue—a determination that it should be considered properly, and a clear intention to scrutinise fully whatever proposals the Government place before Parliament. Can the Leader of the House give us a commitment that if this Bill does get to your Lordships’ House, the Members of this House will have all the time they need to scrutinise the proposals fully and properly?

We have revised proposals before us today. In this House we have time—possibly a good deal of time—to consider these proposals while they are in the House of Commons. That is what I expect that many individual Members of this House will wish to do. For our part, both in the other place and, if necessary, in your Lordships’ House, we will ensure that the Government’s proposals are properly debated, properly considered, properly questioned and properly scrutinised. That is the job of the Opposition; and starting from the publication of the Bill today, that is the job that we will be getting on with.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, having read what Mr Miliband said in support of the prospect of reform, I was surprised by much of what the noble Baroness said this afternoon. I was very impressed with what Mr Miliband said yesterday. He pledged the Labour Party’s support for the Second Reading of the Bill, even before he had had an opportunity to see it. Perhaps when he has read it, he will decide to support a programme Motion to rush it through the House of Commons and into this House as quickly as possible.

The noble Baroness asked whether this should be a priority. It has been hanging around for so long that we have to get around to it at some stage. It started in 1998-99 as a great priority of the previous Government. They published their last White Paper in 2008. I dare say that if the Labour Party had won the election it would have brought forward a Bill. This coalition has decided that it is time to bring this debate to an end and to ask Parliament what its view is, and it is right that we should do so.

There is also the bizarre suggestion that when important things are happening, Parliament cannot decide on other important issues. It is worth reflecting that on 6 and 7 June 1944, the House of Lords was debating the all-important Butler Education Act on Second Reading. Of course, getting growth into the economy is important, but that is not going to be done just in Parliament; it is going to be done by businesses and entrepreneurs up and down the country.

The noble Baroness reiterated the Labour Party’s view that what is most important in reform is that the House should be 100% elected. Respectfully, we disagree, as did the Joint Committee. Although she did not say that the powers between the Houses should be codified, I think that is what she meant. Again, respectfully, we disagree. She said that there should be a referendum. We see no case whatever for a referendum on the issue. Parliament should decide. It would cost £80 million to have a referendum on this issue, which was included as part of all three main parties’ political manifestos. I urge the Opposition to have more confidence in their manifesto, which is only two years old. I hate to point out to noble Lords opposite that there were no referendums in 1958 or 1999, when the composition of the House was changed, and we see no case for one now.

On the question of primacy, it is true that the Joint Committee had a substantial debate on Clause 2, helped by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the Government reflected on that. That is why we have changed the Bill in this way. This is in part because this Bill is about the composition of a reformed House of Lords and the transition arrangements for getting there. It is not about the functions, powers and role of the two Houses, which we would like to see remain unaffected by that change. The Bill clearly states that the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 will continue to apply after the introduction of elected Members.

The Parliament Acts underpin the primacy of the House of Commons in statute. They limit the legislative power of the Lords and ensure that any Administration with a majority in the Commons can ultimately pass legislation without agreement of the House of Lords. We are not aware of any further constitutional implications of repealing the preamble to the 1911 Act.

On the questions of cost raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, she rightly pointed out that the cost of election was excluded from the cost of the House; it stands at £85.7 million every five years. We believe that at the end of the transition period the projected additional annual cost of the House of Lords will be £13.6 million. Of course there will be other associated costs during the course of transition. As for pay, there is something inherently useful about the current arrangements whereby Peers have a daily allowance, and we wish to replicate that through a per diem salary that would be paid monthly in arrears but would be assessed on daily attendance in this House.

In the course of the next few months, there will be many opportunities to discuss some of these issues, but it is also right for the House of Commons now to take its view. I have no idea when the House of Commons is going to discuss these issues, and whether it will be early or late in the autumn. We also have work to do and we should get on with that before dealing with the Bill when it gets to us some time in the winter.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt can I say explicitly that if my Government had been in power now and had faced the economic situation which the country faces now, this would not have been at the top of our priorities and we would not be discussing this Bill in the House of Commons today?

G20 Summit

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for repeating a Statement given in the other place by the Prime Minister on the recent G20 meeting. Unusually, I did not see a copy of the Statement in advance. I am not complaining, but it does make life rather difficult.

I will start with the foreign policy issues. On the Falklands, there is support from this side of the House for the absolute need to protect the principle of self-determination of the islanders. On Syria, there is deep concern on all sides of the House about the continued failure of the Annan plan to deliver a cessation of violence, and there is cross-party consensus on the appalling nature of the Assad regime and the need for the toughest sanctions against Syria. We welcome today’s extension of EU sanctions but given the urgent need for an immediate end to the dreadful and escalating hostilities, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that it is now vital that the wider international community unites around the need for the toughest sanctions against Syria?

The Prime Minister said in his press conference that:

“President Putin has been explicit that he is not locked into Assad remaining in charge in Syria”.

If correct, this clearly represents an important step forward. However, Foreign Minister Lavrov said afterwards in a statement that these comments did not “correspond with reality”. Can the Leader of the House clarify the position?

I now turn to the main business of the summit—the economy. With our country in double-dip recession, with world growth slowing and with the eurozone crisis, if ever there was a time for the international community to come together and act, this was it. All we got from this summit was more of the same: drift and inaction in the face of a global crisis. The Prime Minister claimed afterwards that the summit had made “important progress” on a number of issues,

“on the Eurozone, on the lack of global growth and on the rise of protectionism”.

This sounded familiar. Then we realised why—because the Prime Minister said exactly the same after the last summit, in Cannes last November.

The Prime Minister now says:

“In terms of the slide towards protectionism, I think that has been halted”.

Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister told us precisely the same thing in November? That summit was a success because action had been taken to,

“stop the slide to protectionism”.

That was a great triumph—the slide that had been stopped last November has been halted again.

On global growth, the Cannes summit communiqué said that,

“should global economic conditions materially worsen”,

countries should,

“agree to take discretionary measures to support domestic demand”.

Well, global conditions have worsened and therefore, being true to that communiqué, this G20 should have been a coming together of world leaders to work for a co-ordinated plan for jobs and growth. And what did we get? The communiqué just repeated the same words:

“Should economic conditions deteriorate significantly further, those countries with sufficient fiscal space stand ready to coordinate and implement discretionary fiscal actions to support domestic demand”.

No change, no action.

On the eurozone, I note that the Statement says:

“As full members of the European Union, and a significant net contributor to its budget it is vital that we speak plainly about what needs to happen”.

I think that our partners would have listened to us more if the Prime Minister had not decided to use the veto that never was in December. Actions for short-term political gain have long-term consequences.

The Prime Minister said that while this was not a European Council meeting, progress was made with,

“significant agreements. Now the eurozone countries need to get on and implement them”.

But is not the reality that there is no agreement on the main issues of substance, such as how to recapitalise Spanish banks; how the European Central Bank can stand behind member countries; how to prevent the escalation of problems in bond markets; or how to boost the size of the firewall fund to make it work? Instead, we had more of the same.

For people here at home, the economic reality is that things are getting worse, not better, and there is nothing in this summit’s conclusions to make any difference to that. And there is a simple reason why there was nothing for Britain at this summit: because we have a Prime Minister, and a Government, who simply argue for more of the same. What a contrast with France, where the president is passionate about growth, understanding that it is a prerequisite for dealing with deficits. Austerity is not working; with Britain in a double-dip recession, one of only two G20 countries in that position, can the Leader of the House tell us whether at the G20 the Government were actually arguing for anything different from what they were arguing for last November? From today’s Statement, it does not look as though they were.

Can the Leader of the House confirm that at the time of the Cannes summit, UK growth for 2012 was forecast to be 1.2% and that now the average of independent forecasts is just 0.3%? On the world economy, what this summit needed was a co-ordinated plan to generate greater growth, but the international community is divided between those who want a move towards greater growth and jobs and those whose answer to the failure of the last two years is simply more of the same. I fear that, on this issue, this Government and this Prime Minister are on the wrong side of that argument.

There is one important lesson for the Government from the last week. A global summit in the face of an economic hurricane needs action, not words. The reality is that the Government and the Prime Minister have come back from this summit with nothing for Britain—nothing to cope with double-dip recession, nothing to help Britain’s families and nothing to ensure growth in the world economy. I trust that when the Prime Minister returns from the European summit next week he has growth at the top of his Statement and agenda. Britain deserves more than was achieved at the G20 summit, and we deserve a change of direction; a change of economic strategy; a change that puts action first, not words; and a change that puts jobs and growth first.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition is on good form today. Typically, she sees a socialist president being elected in France, looks over the water and believes that everything over there is going swimmingly. However, she has not read what the good president has said. He said that,

“national debt is the enemy of the left and the enemy of France”.

We agree with that. Mr Hollande would balance France’s budget faster than the coalition plans for the United Kingdom. When asked how he would stimulate growth, the French President said, “The means cannot be extra public spending since we want to rein it in”. We can agree with that; the noble Baroness and her party cannot.

We very much welcome the noble Baroness’s support on the Falklands and Syria. The situation in Syria is immensely dangerous, difficult and complicated. We are still discussing with key partners what more we can do, including in the United Nations, to support the Annan plan. There remain differences over sequencing and the exact shape of how a potential transition can take place but we have put in place a strong EU arms embargo, are closely tracking other shipments to Syria and want to work with countries and companies around the world to stop them. We have had useful conversations with Russia but the key thing is to get together, to work together and to try to implement the Annan plan, if at all possible.

I rather admire the fact that the noble Baroness’s research led her to spot that some of the words in this communiqué were the same as those used at the Cannes summit. She read that as signifying that nothing had changed. However, it may also prove some admirable consistency emanating out of G20 summits in that there are still common problems with which to deal, and they are going to be dealt with.

The noble Baroness took a pot shot at what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister did at the EU summit at the end of December, which was not to sign up to the communiqué. As I said at the time, the reason my right honourable friend did not sign that communiqué was because he believed in protecting British interests, which is what he did. The noble Baroness and her party would have signed it and, we believe, would have sold vital British interests down the river.

The G20 was a success in the sense that many of these gatherings are a success as an opportunity for the leaders of different countries to discuss some of the key issues facing the world and to try to come to an agreement. There was no shying away from the fact that one of the most difficult issues facing the world at the moment is the problems in the eurozone. We have come up with what we believe to be helpful and constructive words to try to encourage the eurozone to find a solution in preparation for the European Council later this week. However, in the end, the countries in the eurozone have to make those decisions themselves.

House of Lords: Behaviour in the Chamber

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. In 1999, the average attendance at the House of Lords was 350; in 2005, it was 400; in the previous Session it was 475; so we can see the increase there. However, as far as behaviour is concerned, more than half of the Peers appointed since the general election have not attended any of the induction seminars offered by the Clerk of the Parliaments. I have written to them, encouraging them to do so. I am glad to say that the Clerk of the Parliaments will be resuming a further series of seminars in the autumn and I would very much encourage them to go along.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

Like the noble Lord the Leader, I welcome the fact that this House is more assertive in terms of interventions, but it is not so different from how it was in the past. I well recall that my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland was intervened on 20 times in one speech. I would like to put that on the record. Does the noble Lord agree that if more recommendations from the Goodlad report on working practices were agreed to and implemented perhaps that would assist with behaviour in the House?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, many of the recommendations in the Goodlad report on working practices have been agreed, but quite a lot of them have been rejected by the House. The Procedure Committee will no doubt wish to take that into account.

Financial Services Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I have been on a pretty steep learning curve about the procedures of the House since last Monday. When the Motion to put the whole Committee stage of the Financial Services Bill into Grand Committee was withdrawn I imagined that the will of the House would be respected, that that would be the last we heard of it and that there would be no question of our now having to talk about some compromise on all this—namely that the Bill should be split, with some of it debated in Grand Committee and some on the Floor of the House.

Therefore, I talked to the Clerk of the Parliaments about it, realising that perhaps I did not totally understand. He explained that when the Government withdrew the Motion, it did not mean that they could not bring back another. I said, “What should I have done about the Motion that was put down originally?”. The Clerk said that that Motion should have been amended; it could have been amended at the last minute by a manuscript amendment, but he said that that was not much approved of in this House. However, I am afraid that that is what I have been forced to do today for the simple reason that the Motion was tabled on Friday, when the House was not even sitting. There has been no opportunity to table a proper amendment to it; it has to be a manuscript amendment. I apologise to the House for that but I did not see that I had an alternative.

I reiterate: we are talking about the Financial Services Bill. It is a major piece of legislation which has been drafted to reorganise our financial institutions completely and regulate them properly. I do not think that the people of this country would understand it if we were to put any part of this Bill in Grand Committee. This extremely important legislation needs very serious consideration by your Lordships. As well as that, this Bill brings out the best of your Lordships’ House. There is a tremendous amount of expertise here which needs to be brought to the fore. That can be done much better if the whole of Committee stage is debated on the Floor of the House.

I ask the House to consider seriously whether any of this Bill should be committed to a Grand Committee. As a noble friend said to me earlier, if we do not discuss the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House, which other Bills will we consider on the Floor of the House? It seems that the Government have a desire to put everything into Grand Committee. It is for us to stand up against that and say, “No, we want the whole of this very important Bill to be considered on the Floor of the House”. I hope that the House will support my amendment.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, we have before us a very important matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has said, how we regulate our financial services and the financial services sector is vital to economic and financial stability. What our banks do and how they do it is important for the prospects for growth and employment in this country.

We on these Benches had not seen the terms of these Motions before today and we certainly had not agreed to them in the usual channels. I had a private meeting with the Leader of the House on Wednesday morning at which we discussed this matter and I told him in all honesty that I could not agree to the terms of the Motion, that I needed to have further consultations and discussions with my colleagues and that I would come back to him and the usual channels in due course. That I did first thing on Thursday morning, since when we have heard nothing about the Motion before us today. As for the Opposition’s role on this Bill within the usual channels, I wrote to the Leader of the House this morning, once we had seen the terms of the Motion before us. I would be happy to provide noble Lords with a copy of that letter.

My concern, much more than accusations from the Leader and the ins-and-outs of the usual channels, is what Members of this House want. When the Government tried to put the whole of the Bill in Grand Committee a week ago today I thought that the statements made by Members from across the whole of this House made clear what the majority of them wanted. At a very late hour, during that debate on the Floor of this Chamber, Members made it abundantly clear that they wanted the whole of the Bill to be considered by a Committee of the whole House. What Members of the House were telling the Government was clear.

Last Tuesday I had discussions with the Government about splitting the Bill and taking some parts on the Floor of the House and some in Grand Committee. I could see some merit in that approach, which is why we were prepared to consider it constructively in discussions within the usual channels. Yes we discussed it, but no we did not agree on it—precisely because I had to have discussions with my colleagues on the Benches behind me, which is the right and proper thing to do. In any case, we would not have agreed to the split that the Government now propose. Neither would we have agreed to only three days in a Committee of the whole House. We do not think that that split works. We also think that it was wrong not to include Part 4, on the mechanisms to deal with current issues, for consideration by a Committee of the whole House.

This House is self-regulating and on matters such as this it is for this House, and this House alone, to decide what it wishes to do. From our soundings, most Members on the Benches behind me want the Bill to be considered by a Committee of the whole House, which is what I believe many Members from all across the House want to see. That is precisely what the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, proposes.

I therefore look forward to this House, not the Government, deciding what it wants to do. From these Benches, we do not believe that the Government’s proposal is the right approach. We believe that the House should reject it and accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I hope that the Government will listen to the House when it makes its decision today.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, in the light of the assurances made by the Leader of the House on the Motion, I am genuinely puzzled as to why it is being brought forward. He has told us that it has nothing whatever to do with the decks being cleared for a House of Lords Bill. If that is the case, I simply do not know why the Government are so anxious to put preferably the whole of the Bill and at worst a significant part of the Bill into Grand Committee. I remind the Leader and the House that it is a pretty rare procedure in this House—less so in the other House—to split Bills between Grand Committee and the Floor of the House. Frankly, it is done for the best reasons, as I have said on occasions in the past, when the Government are under tremendous pressure of time.

Believe it or not, I have some sympathy with the Government when they claim that they are under tremendous time constraints. However, this simply will not wash in the current Session, when we have the smallest number of Bills and the lightest legislative programme of any Session in recent political history—certainly lighter than at any stage for the last 20 years; I have not gone back any further. There are, I believe, some 15 Bills this Session compared with an average of 30 Bills in a normal 12-month Session, so I cannot accept that there is any tremendous pressure on time for the Government, particularly when we finished a day or two early before the Spring Jubilee Recess, which was announced at the last minute. We even finished rather early before Prorogation of the last Session of Parliament, so the Government have cried wolf somewhat on the matter of time and without real justification.

As for the Leader of the House persuading his Back-Benchers, I imagine by saying, “Gosh, if we do not get this Motion through, it will be late night after late night”, I can only say that life gets tough at times. However, I cannot accept that argument, given that the Government are making all sorts of random decisions about having longer recesses than normal and not sitting when the House of Commons is sitting, which again is not normally the case. My argument is therefore really one of bafflement about the pressure on the Government’s time and, frankly, the Government not being able to accept that it means endless late-night sittings.

Lastly, I hope that the Leader of the House will at least acknowledge that it is not a very satisfactory way to treat the House to introduce this Motion on Friday night. I knew absolutely nothing about this Motion going down on the Order Paper until 10 o’clock this morning, like everyone else in the House—perhaps apart from some on the government Benches, I dare say. Anyone who wanted to put down an amendment had no option other than to put down a manuscript amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, did—and I am very pleased that he did. Are we going to have to face this sort of government management of business in the future? Not knowing even a day before what could be a very important decision for the House to make really is a very unsatisfactory way to manage government business.

I appeal to the Leader of the House to listen to what I believe is a very strong view in the House. If he was desperate to put this Motion down, can he please explain the time pressures on him and why it had to go down today? What was wrong with tomorrow? I do not want to sound Machiavellian and suspicious, but the slight feeling is that perhaps the Motion went down on Friday and various people were telephoned over the weekend to the effect, “Please come along and support the Government so that you do not have to sit late at night, night after night”. I do not think that is a very credible argument, so I hope that the Leader of the House will give a satisfactory answer to those questions. If he cannot, he really should withdraw this Motion.

Business

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the issue of policy announcements being made when Parliament is not sitting was raised by my noble friend Lord Eatwell, but, naturally, the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, did not address it.

Perhaps I may read a brief extract from the Ministerial Code. It states:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament … Every effort should be made to avoid leaving significant announcements to the last day before a recess”.

Why then did the policy changes in relation to VAT have to be made now? If they did, why did the Government not adhere to the Ministerial Code and make the announcement to Parliament? We are one of the Houses of Parliament.

I mention in passing an article by the Chancellor in today’s Daily Mail in which he announces a profound change in policy, some of which I am sure is very welcome, in relation to courts’ and coroners’ proceedings being conducted in secret. Why was that announcement made in the Daily Mail today and not to Parliament?

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, on the latter part I think the noble Baroness will find that a Bill will be published soon on this matter. On the first point, which is significant, she said, quite rightly, that the Ministerial Code says that important and significant announcements should be made to Parliament first. The issue on the pasty tax is of course very good news; on the caravan tax, it is also very good news to those who live in and own static caravans. I do not think that it is the most significant or important decision that this Government have ever made. I suspect, although I do not know for certain, that the Treasury felt this was not the most significant announcement to make and therefore did not inform Parliament by way of an Oral Statement.