G8 and NATO Summits

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating a Statement given earlier today in the other place by the Prime Minister on the G8 and NATO meetings. We on these Benches very much welcome the announcement made today about the visit of Aung Sang Suu Kyi. Her whole life is an extraordinary and humbling record of her fight for democracy and human rights and we look forward hugely to her visit to this country, and in particular to her speaking to both Houses of Parliament next month.

I will begin with the NATO summit. On Afghanistan, we welcome the summit’s confirmation that the transition of full security responsibility from ISAF to the Afghan national security forces is set for completion by mid-2013, with the end of British combat operations by the end of 2014. Our troops have already served heroically in Afghanistan for over a decade. We owe them enormous gratitude and I certainly endorse the tribute paid in the Statement. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we want to see them home with their families—and home in the right way, respecting the professionalism that they have shown and the sacrifices that they have made.

To that end, can the Leader give the House a clearer indication of the timetable for the expected draw-down of British combat troops between now and 2014? Can he tell us how many British service personnel the Government expect to remain in Afghanistan after 2014 and which services they will be drawn from, and confirm that those who remain will serve under a NATO command and control structure? Can he tell the House what discussions the Government have had with President Zardari on the issue of land access across Pakistan, which is so vital for British military and ISAF supplies?

Turning to the political situation in Afghanistan, does the Leader of the House agree that honouring the sacrifices and bravery of our troops means taking the political challenge there as seriously as the military challenge? Given that the final stage of the military campaign is under way, what concrete steps will now be taken that were not already in place before Chicago to secure an inclusive political settlement within Afghanistan and between Afghanistan’s regional partners? Does the Leader agree that we need a far greater urgency in seeking this political settlement?

Women in Afghanistan have made significant progress over the past few years, in part thanks to advances in education, which we have supported. We celebrate the fact that women now make up 27% of the Afghan National Assembly—interestingly, this compares to 22% in the House of Commons. However, these courageous women are deeply concerned about what will happen to their hard-fought gains after 2014. Can the Leader assure me that the position of women will be taken into consideration in all talks relating to a political settlement?

On Iran, can the Leader of the House confirm media reports that the issue of Iran’s nuclear capability was discussed last week by the National Security Council? Can he confirm that the Government have sought legal advice on the legality of a range of possible actions by the United Kingdom in relation to Iran’s nuclear capability? Can the Leader update the House on the talks on this issue taking place in Baghdad today?

Turning to the G8, we join with the Government in calling for an immediate end to violence to stop the continuing bloodshed in Syria. The Statement rightly mentioned the discussions that have taken place about Africa. Can the Leader say whether or not Africa will be high on the agenda when the UK takes over the chair of the G8 next year?

On the global economy, we desperately needed a summit that delivered a plan for growth but did not get it. That was because the international community is divided between those who believe that we must have a decisive shift towards growth—including President Obama, now joined by President Hollande—and those who believe that the answer lies in more of the same: that is, the German Chancellor and our Prime Minister. For two years, the Government have been telling the world that austerity alone is the answer. Now, as the recognition dawns that this is not working, the Government find themselves on the wrong side of the argument.

On the economy here at home, this Government have delivered recovery turning into recession, no growth for 18 months and over 1 million young people out of work. Even the IMF is now saying that time is running out for plan A. At the G20 last November, the Prime Minister signed a communiqué that said that,

“should global economic conditions materially worsen”,

countries will take,

“measures to support domestic demand”.

Global conditions have worsened, so what is the action for growth? Where is the decisive shift that we need across the global economy? The reality is that this Prime Minister cannot be the advocate for a plan for growth abroad when he and his Government cannot advance one at home.

Finally, on the European summit tonight, Eurobonds are important, and a stronger firewall would make a difference. However, the crucial thing is demand. Does the Leader of the House accept that without a plan for growth in Europe we cannot get a solution on deficits across Europe that is either politically or economically sustainable? The problem with the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and indeed the Cabinet—of which the noble Lord the Leader of the House is a member—is that they can offer only more of the same. They cannot be part of the solution because they are part of the problem. All they can offer is more austerity—but austerity is not working in Britain and it is not working in Europe. We need jobs and growth in this country. We believe that it is time that this Government shifted their strategy and started to do things to help generate jobs and growth.

Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with his vast experience, I know that my noble friend Lord Boswell of Aynho will take on this role exceedingly ably.

It is a great pleasure at this point to pay tribute to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Roper. The work of the European Union Committee is very highly regarded not only within this House but among national parliaments across the EU, and that is due in no small part to the skill and dedication of its chairman. The noble Lord was exceptionally well qualified for the chairmanship of the European Union Committee. To pick just two highlights from his CV, in the 1990s he was the first director of the Institute for Security Studies in Paris, and in this House he was the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip from 2001 to 2005. From there it was a natural progression to becoming the chairman of the foreign affairs sub-committee, and in December 2008 the chairman of the Select Committee. As chairman, the noble Lord has steered the committee through a pivotal time for national parliaments in the EU, not to mention testing times for the European Union as a whole. Under the Lisbon treaty, national parliaments were given new powers as the guardians of subsidiarity, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, directed the adaptation of the committee’s work to these new powers and responsibilities. He has done that, as he has done all his work, with good humour, good sense and impressive attention to detail. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to him.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome to the role of Deputy Chairman of Committees the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho. I know that his long-standing interest in and involvement with Europe will stand him in good stead for the job, as of course it did for the noble Lord, Lord Roper. He has extraordinary and deep knowledge, and he is held in the highest regard throughout the European Union as well as in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, has steered the European Union Committee with his customary skill, knowledge and courtesy throughout his period as its chair. He has been applying all of those qualities to managing the House’s current proposals to do some redrawing of its committees with considerable success. I know that that has caused the noble Lord and members of the committee pain, but I am grateful for the way in which he carried out the change.

We on these Benches, where, we suspect, despite his shift 30 years ago, perhaps part of his heart still lies, thank him for all that he has done and we wish him well for the future.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has made a journey not unlike my own, to which the noble Baroness has just referred. I am still smarting from that stiletto in the ribs delivered some time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I would only remind him of the story of the young Conservative candidate fighting his first election in one of the Welsh valley seats who started his adoption meeting by saying, “I was a born a Tory, I am a Tory, and I will die a Tory”, and a voice came from the back saying, “Why, man, have you no ambitions?”. Certainly I have no ambitions to join the Conservative Party but I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Roper, back on our Benches.

I am very proud of the way the noble Lord has carried out the chairmanship of the European Union Committee. I think all sides of the House take pleasure in the reputation that that committee has for its diligence and objectivity in dealing with the issues of Europe, and much of that has been, over the last few years, due to the skill of John Roper. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, indicated, that skill comes from a deep and long involvement in European affairs as an academic and a politician, and we have all benefited from it.

As for the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, e-mailed me to say that he would be asking the noble Lord to take this job, I replied with just one word: “Excellent”, and that is what I think it is—excellent.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on their first-rate speeches this afternoon. There is a tradition of excellence in these speeches on the occasion of the State Opening of Parliament, and it is a tradition that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have upheld in an exemplary manner. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the Diamond Jubilee and the exemplary example of Her Majesty the Queen. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, and hope that he will enjoy his life on the Back Benches. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to his post. I have to say that I always thought that he was such a nice chap.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his generous comments. As noble Lords will be aware, the noble Lord was a Member of Parliament for South Gloucestershire until his seat was abolished, and was then returned for the Northavon constituency, a victim of boundary changes under the last Conservative Government, and subsequently lost his seat to a Liberal Democrat, Mr Steve Webb. However, I wonder what will happen in this and other seats at the next election when members of the coalition stand against each other, especially after the bloodbath which will follow the boundary changes. As a Gloucestershire girl, albeit from the other side of the mighty river Severn—we are desperately in need of a water Bill, and not just a draft water Bill—and also as a former Chief Whip, my heart warms to the noble Lord, someone with whom I have enjoyed racing days at Chepstow. I have to say that, following last week’s elections, it does look, in parliamentary terms, as though he may not be backing the right horse. As a chartered accountant, he should be more cautious about how best to place his political bets.

If the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is a deeply experienced politician, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is a relatively new girl on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but I would not call her gullible. I was delighted to read that she is an engineer who subsequently taught mathematics and that she, too, has spent much of her time in the south-west. Her work in the community, in the not-for-profit sector, on the rather different issues of rural poverty and Oman and, of course, her work in the National Health Service are all sterling tributes to her energy, commitment and sense of service. The noble Baroness is also clearly a woman of some fortitude and resilience, in that she served as the election agent for the then Mr Paul Tyler in the 1997 election. To serve as the election agent of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and subsequently to arrive on the same Benches as him in the House of Lords must of course be a pleasure, but must also offer an unrivalled chance to hear the noble Lord’s views on further reform of your Lordships’ House.

For a considerable number of Members of your Lordships’ House, today’s events will be the first time they have experienced in person, in their roles now, the State Opening of Parliament and the gracious Speech, setting out the legislative programme of this Government; the first time, because of the unprecedented length of the last Session. It is now two years since this coalition Government set out their first legislative programme at the start of what was to become a marathon—I would say monster—Session. Think back to that time. Think back to the flurries of excitement and urgency in which the coalition was formed in the wake of no single political party winning the general election. Think back to the days of seeing Liberals in office for the first time, other than in wartime, since 1906. Think back to the sun-dappled days of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the Downing Street garden. Think back to when it all seemed, for them, bright and sparkling and new.

Then look at the reality. The reality of a Tory-led Government doing what all Tory-led Governments have done since 1948: attacking the National Health Service. The reality of Liberal Democrats rejecting their signed, explicit pre-election promises not to increase university tuition fees, blighting the life chances of a generation of young people, and bringing charges of political treason which made themselves manifest, I suspect, in last week’s local elections and which will hit them even harder in the next general election. The reality of the loss of more than 16,000 police officers through cutting too far and too fast; cuts so unacceptable to the police that they are marching against them tomorrow, under the banner of “20% cuts are criminal”. My own local and principled chief constable in Gloucestershire has resigned rather than implement them; indeed, I believe that he will be marching tomorrow. The reality of the coalition’s unstinting attacks, across a range of policies, on hard-working families, on women and on young people; the reality of the Government’s botched and partisan attempts at constitutional reform; the shambles of the AV referendum; gerrymandering parliamentary constituencies; and rigging the length of Parliaments. That is the record of this Government in their first two years since the first Queen’s Speech. It is not the sun-dappled achievement that the Prime Minister and the increasingly desperate-sounding Deputy Prime Minister like to try to promote. It is the record of failure and people being hit hard by Tory policies and Tory cuts, which are supported every step of the way, to their party’s permanent shame, by the Liberal Democrats. It is not liberal or democratic, just Tory.

The real record is of businesses and shops closing; of people being put out of work; of young people never getting into work; of the already disadvantaged being forced to move hundreds of miles to get a roof over their heads; of communities being blighted by cuts; of trying to sell off our forests; of tax cuts to the rich of Britain; of once again being isolated in Europe; and, worst of all, of an economy now back in recession in the first double-dip recession since the pre-Thatcher era. It is the record of an economy which should now be about jobs and growth, and not about cuts which are going too far and too fast. That is the record of this coalition Government and that is the reality.

It is no wonder that Conservative councillors lost their seats all across the country in last week’s local elections. I agree with the noble Lord that we should all be ashamed that the turnout was so low. The party’s dismal showing was beaten only by its coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, who saw their number of local councillors fall below the 3,000 level for the first time in the party’s entire history.

This is a Government whom we can now all see are unfair, incompetent and out of touch. Does the Government’s legislative programme show that the coalition has listened to the electors who so soundly and so clearly rejected their policies last week? What is most noticeable about the legislative programme is what is not in it rather than what is. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, there is nothing on jobs or growth, and nothing to get this recession-mired economy moving. There is nothing to ease people’s worries about their jobs, their mortgages, their children’s opportunities, the cost of their weekly shop and filling the car, the NHS and schools, crime, the present and what will happen when they get old, and their worries about the future.

Amid newspaper reports of the Queen’s Speech being ripped up at the last minute to make way for today’s offering—and the inclusion of a Bill on donors to charities, trying to right the wrong of the Budget, which is clearly nothing more than a panic measure—we heard the legislative equivalent of cars crashing gearboxes as the Government went into reverse on a whole range of issues. That is in the wake of not only last week’s election results but the interpretation immediately put on them by Tory Back-Benchers who straight away were hoisting warning cones about the need to see a return to Conservative values and the end of the Liberal Democrat tail wagging the coalition dog. There is no legislation on gay marriage and, suddenly, a very different tone on further reform of your Lordships’ House.

On television over the weekend, no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer was kind enough to insist that House of Lords reform would not be allowed to be a distraction. He said:

“Look, when it comes to the House of Lords, Parliament will debate this—and Parliament’s perfectly capable of debating many things, that’s what Parliaments do—but it is not going to be the over-riding priority of this Government, absolutely not. The over-riding priority is fixing the economy.”

He went on to say that Lords reform,

“is not where the efforts of the Government and the executive are going to be directed”.

Even the ever buoyant Leader of the House pitched in, revealing his view that plans for Lords reform could be killed in the Commons—not, in his view, by the Opposition but by his own side. It could be killed by Conservative Back-Benchers opposed to an 80 per cent elected second Chamber.

Last week, this House debated two reports on further Lords reform; namely, the reports of the all-party Joint Committee on the House of Lords reform Bill and the alternative report proposed by a very large minority group on the Joint Committee. Both argued for a referendum on further reform of your Lordships’ House, a policy for which my party, and only my party, has been arguing and a policy for which the coalition has been arguing that there is no need. Suddenly, we have “a source very close to Mr Cameron”, as the papers put it, saying that the Prime Minister is now “very likely” to approve a referendum on Lords’ reform, which, naturally, I would welcome. But that is in direct contradiction of the insistence of his deputy, Mr Nick Clegg, although I noted the views of the noble Lords, Lord Ashdown and Lord Tyler, among others, last week.

Further reform of your Lordships’ House is indeed indicated in the legislative programme set out in the gracious Speech but it is set out in a way which seems to damage the Government both ways at once. First, it could barely be given a less propitious birth. All it says in the Queen’s Speech is:

“A Bill will be brought forward to reform the composition of the House of Lords”.

I am sure that all noble Lords will wonder exactly what that might mean. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I, too, look forward to further expansion in the speech of the Leader of the House. Put that together with the briefing which has gone on around it, from the Chancellor on the weekend media to the guidance that seems to be emanating from the centre of government today, that there is nothing set in stone, nothing definite which will happen, nothing which will upset the applecart, nothing which will displease Tory Back-Benchers and nothing which will proceed without consensus. But whatever else last week’s reports from the Joint Committee and the minority group of the Joint Committee showed, they showed with absolute clarity that there is no consensus at all on Lords reform—no consensus about what is a consensus, as has been said; no consensus within each of the two Houses; no consensus across each of the two Houses; and no consensus between the two Houses. Crucially, the briefing battle around today’s Queen’s Speech shows us clearly that there is no consensus on Lords reform within the coalition, either.

What noble Lords see before them is the prospect of a Bill which looks as though it can barely muster enough energy to be a Bill. And yet, at precisely the same time, it is still distorting this legislative programme. So much has been shovelled aside to make way for it. The media were full of stories last week listing what has already gone. So there will be no Bill on enshrining in law the target for international aid of 0.7% of national income—just a promise, rather than the promised Bill; no Bill getting high-speed rail going, despite the warm words about infrastructure investment in yesterday’s damp squib of a relaunch; no Bills on a register of lobbyists, despite the scandals in government; no Bills on bailiff reform or forced marriage; and just draft Bills on social care and water. There is also no mention of executive pay, despite what we heard Mr Cable saying at lunchtime. All promised, none delivered.

We will look carefully at the Bills that the Government are proposing to bring forward on adult care; on family-friendly work flexibility; on arrangements for children with special educational needs; on pensions; on a green investment bank; on a groceries code adjudicator; on public sector pensions; and others. We will support them where possible. Indeed, many of the ideas have a resonance of some of the things that we were proposing, and I welcome that. But the devil will be in the detail, and we have seen in this last, long, two-year Session how wretched that detail can be—on the NHS, welfare, legal aid and forests.

Even after what we are led to believe has been major surgery to this Queen’s Speech, even after the reverses, about-turns and changes of position, this is still a legislative programme which not only lacks a narrative but clearly shows that the Government lack the vision, hope and optimism that we as a country need. What the country wants, what the country made plain last week that it requires, is clear. The people of this country want to see this Government take action—not action to help this coalition, but action to help this country. People want to see action on jobs, growth and the economy. Where in the Queen’s Speech is that action, the strategy for growth and jobs? Where is the legislation for helping this country out of recession and the programme for the people of this country? Not in the legislative programme that we have seen today.

What we have seen today is a programme for no change—a programme where nothing is changing because this Tory-led Government are putting the wrong people first. The Government are trying to build a narrative that the Queen’s Speech is family friendly, yet in the Budget they are asking millions of families to pay more, while giving tax cuts to millionaires. They are laying off thousands of nurses in the NHS while spending billions on a wasteful and destructive NHS reorganisation, and they are cutting spending and raising taxes too far and too fast, leading to low growth and high unemployment.

What should have been in today’s Queen’s Speech are measures to help boost growth and jobs, to help living standards and to help unemployed young people. There should have been a fair deal on tax, reversing the tax cuts for the rich; a fair deal on energy, breaking the dominance of the big six power companies; a fair deal on transport; a fair deal for consumers; and a fair deal on jobs. That is the kind of Queen’s Speech which this country wants to see and that is the kind of Queen’s Speech which this country needs to see. That is why we on these Benches will be putting down an amendment to the Motion before the House, as the noble Lord the Leader has done in past years, calling on this coalition Government to address properly the economic recovery which this country needs, to bring in measures to boost growth and jobs, and to improve living standards and the opportunities for young people who are out of work. That is what these Benches will be pressing for and that is what we urge Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House to support.

With that amendment before us, this is a Queen’s Speech which we look forward to debating over the rest of this week and next. It contains a legislative programme that we look forward to scrutinising and to supporting, where possible, and, where we oppose it, to doing so as vigorously as we can, over the rest of the new Session. This is a Government who we look forward to seeing defeated at the next election.

I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

Chairman of Committees

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I echo the words of the Leader of the House and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, as the new Lord Chairman. He will be a loss to these Benches but, I am sure, a fine Lord Chairman. Of course, he has a hard act to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was Lord Chairman of your Lordships’ House for all the time that I have been a Member, and for a fair deal longer. The fact that he will no longer be Lord Chairman seems rather strange to many of us.

In his time as Lord Chairman, he steered the House’s internal and domestic side through many difficulties, but he rose to all the challenges. He was a particular stalwart a few years ago when the House was in the middle of a set of events that led eventually to our adoption of a new system of financial support for Members. Not so long ago he also became an unlikely star of YouTube—but of course not the House’s only star as he was joined shortly afterwards by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whose turn was also something of a must-watch.

The noble Lord served this House loyally, with great dedication and with huge effort as Chairman of Committees. I know that the officials and staff of the House, like us, enjoyed working with him and held him in high regard. On behalf of these Benches, I thank him for all that he did for the House, and give him our warmest good wishes for the future.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to welcome the elevation of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, because the last time I commented in this House on the noble Lord I said that he brought a “superficial academic authority” to his remarks. I make it clear that this was a moment of impulse, instantly regretted, and hope it will not influence my relations with him in his new, elevated position.

I have no problem at all in paying great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. I always thought that Brabs brought to his position all the touch and authority of a housemaster at a minor public school—which is exactly what the House of Lords needs in a Chairman of Committees. Noble Lords may get passionate about political issues, but they should see Brabs trying to steer through the introduction of an electronic pass system on the doors, or a new way of going in and out of the car park, or a safe way of crossing from Millbank. This required skill of the highest political order and was always done from the Dispatch Box with the most benign authority. It has been a pleasure to work with him over these years and I am pleased to pay this tribute to his quiet skills, for which the whole House is in his debt.

News Corporation: Conduct of Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating as a Statement in your Lordships’ House the remarks made by the Prime Minister earlier today in the other place in relation to the position of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and to his, his office’s and his department’s connections with News Corporation over its failed bid last year to take over BSkyB.

When the allegations against the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Jeremy Hunt MP, emerged last week, arising from material released by the inquiry into relations between the press, politicians and the police, headed by Lord Justice Leveson, my party called for the Secretary of State to resign or be sacked. We do not as a party make such calls lightly. We have a right to do so; the Secretary of State should have resigned then. Having failed to do so, he should resign now.

The release by the Leveson inquiry of material relating to the Secretary of State and to News Corporation’s bid led directly to two events: first, the resignation of Mr Hunt’s special adviser, Mr Adam Smith, over the e-mails and other communications that he had with News Corporation in connection with its BSkyB bid; and secondly, in the wake and as a result of that resignation, calls for the Secretary of State to be investigated for potential breaches of the Ministerial Code, the Cabinet Office rules that govern the conduct and behaviour of government Ministers.

The Government, led by the Prime Minister, sought to avoid such an investigation, arguing that the correct procedure for inquiring into these matters is the already extant inquiry led by Mr Justice Leveson, and that a second, parallel inquiry would be confusing and inappropriate. The Prime Minister and the Government also sought to insist that in their view the Secretary of State had not breached the Ministerial Code. That was the burden of the Statement by the Prime Minister that the Leader of the House of Lords repeated today.

This simply will not do. Judges tend not to welcome what they regard as interference by politicians. Judicial independence is a central element in the justice system and the constitution of our country. Rightly, therefore, Lord Justice Leveson both rejected the misguided attempt by the Secretary of State to use the inquiry for his own personal and political ends by seeking to reschedule his appearance before it, and made it clear that the inquiry was not the correct or appropriate mechanism to resolve matters relating to the Ministerial Code.

I looked again today at the terms of reference for the Leveson inquiry. It is transparently clear that there is nothing in the terms of reference that could possibly give it any locus in matters relating to issues covered by the Ministerial Code. For the Prime Minister or other Ministers, including the Secretary of State, to do so was wrong. The Prime Minister told the BBC yesterday that he would investigate the Secretary of State under the Ministerial Code if there were evidence of wrongdoing, or if any material came from the Leveson inquiry that warranted such an investigation.

The purpose of such an investigation under the Ministerial Code is to determine whether there has been any breach of the code, not to mount an inquiry after the fact of the wrongdoing has become clear. The e-mails and other matter released by the Leveson inquiry last week precisely constitute, under the code, material that warrants further investigation. The code is clear and explicit on the point. Paragraph 1.3 sets out the matter. After stating that it is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials to enforce the code, it states:

“If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary, feels that it warrants further investigation, he will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests”.

Let us look more closely at that paragraph. It specifies an allegation. Is there an allegation in this case? There is indeed: a serious allegation that the Secretary of State kept informed one of the parties to a bid that he was considering in a quasi-judicial manner of the progress of that bid in a way that was wholly inappropriate to that role; an allegation that the Secretary of State was in breach of paragraph 1 of the Ministerial Code, which requires Ministers to act in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety; a serious allegation that as part of the information that was incorrectly and inappropriately supplied, details of the announcements to be made to Parliament and to the Stock Exchange were made to the bidder in the case, days before such announcements were made public; an allegation that the Secretary of State was in breach of paragraph 9.1 of the code, which stipulates that announcements by Ministers must be made in the first instance to Parliament; and an allegation that the Secretary of State is currently in breach of paragraph 3.3 of the code, which focuses on the activities and operations of special advisers, and the responsibilities of both special advisers and the Ministers for whom they work. Again, the code is clear, stating:

“The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment”.

In this case, that is clearly the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

“Individual Ministers will be accountable to the Prime Minister, Parliament and the public for their actions and decisions in respect of their special advisers”,

says the code, and clearly, in this case, it is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The role of the Minister is clear.

In this case, the conduct of the special adviser, Mr Adam Smith, was such as to warrant his resignation from his post within government the day after the Leveson inquiry released the material last week. Mr Smith took responsibility for his actions, but the code makes it quite clear that the Minister is ultimately responsible for the actions and conduct of his special adviser. If in this case Mr Smith believed that his actions warranted his resignation and that in this case, as in all others, the Minister is responsible and accountable for the actions and conduct of his special adviser, then it clearly follows that it is for the Secretary of State or, if he will not do so, the Prime Minister on his behalf, to act in the way that the special adviser has done. That is why we call for his resignation. We believe that it is transparently clear that the Secretary of State is in breach of the Ministerial Code and that, like his special adviser, he should go.

There are clear, specific allegations. Paragraph 1.3 of the code, on investigations under the code, stipulates that the Prime Minister must consult the Cabinet Secretary on any allegations. Has the Prime Minister consulted the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood? We are told that he has. We do not, of course, know the nature of any such consultations between the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Secretary, who is an official of high ability, high repute and high integrity. Having consulted, does the Prime Minister feel that the matter warrants further investigation? Clearly, from his public statements, and from the Statement repeated today by the Leader of the House, he does not. We on these Benches argue that he is wrong in that opinion. The matter clearly warrants further investigation.

Support for this position has come from a number of sources, but among the most notable have been three former Cabinet Secretaries, all Members of your Lordships’ House: the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, Lord Butler of Brockwell and Lord Turnbull. All three noble Lords were men standing in precisely the position of the current Cabinet Secretary. With slightly differing emphases, all three believe that there has indeed been a breach of the Ministerial Code in this case. Accordingly, we on these Benches believe that the Prime Minister should refer the matter to Sir Alex Allan, the current independent adviser.

Do the Government accept that there has been in this case an allegation—indeed, a number of allegations—about the conduct of the Secretary of State? Do the Government accept that the resignation of the special adviser to the Secretary of State supports irrefutably that there are such allegations? Do the Government accept in the light of the opinion expressed by MPs, Peers, academics, commentators and, indeed, three former Cabinet Secretaries, all distinguished and senior Members of your Lordships’ House, that the allegations warrant investigation under the terms of the Ministerial Code? Do the Government therefore accept that the Prime Minister accordingly must refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests for investigation? If the Government do not accept these questions, will the Leader of the House set out, bearing in mind the entirely appropriate insistence by Lord Justice Leveson that his inquiry is not the correct method of examining these matters, on what possible basis the Government do not accept them?

A Minister’s actions, a Minister’s integrity and a Minister’s career are not matters to be considered lightly, let alone dismissed lightly. We on these Benches do not do so, but even if it is not accepted that there is wrong here—and we believe there is wrong here—it must be accepted that there are serious matters here that warrant proper investigation. We believe that the Government should act, and act today.

Draft House of Lords Reform Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I echo the thanks of the Leader of the House to my noble friend Lord Richard for his speech opening this important debate. I also thank my noble friend and all those who served on the Joint Committee, especially those from all sides of this House, for the enormous amount of work and effort they put into their task. The House has every reason to be grateful.

We are told that further reform of your Lordships’ House might form the centrepiece of the Government’s legislative programme for the forthcoming Session, to be set out in the gracious Speech to this House next week. Even this close to the Queen’s Speech, it seems incredible to those on these Benches—and, I believe, to the whole country—that, given the problems facing the whole country, the coalition Government think that the issue they need to focus on above all is the future reform of this House.

After the Budget there were rows over the granny tax, the pasty tax, the caravan tax, the charities tax, the conservatory tax and the churches tax—virtually every kind of tax. The Government provoked panic petrol buying, there was a cash-for-access row, the embarrassing mishandling of the Abu Qatada case, social cleansing in public housing, attacks in the most dismissive terms from their own Back-Benchers, personal abuse from MPs such as Nadine Dorries, and searching strategic criticism from MPs such as Bernard Jenkin. Then came the entanglement of Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Worst of all are the Government’s economic policies: the spending cuts going too far too fast, and the absolute lack of a growth strategy tipping Britain back into recession. All of them are linked by one theme and are driven by what the Government have done. They are all self-generated and self-inflicted.

People across the country are deeply worried. They are worried about their jobs, prices, whether they can afford to put meals on the table, whether they have enough money to fill up their cars, the health service, education and crime. What is this Government’s response to their worries? It is House of Lords reform. It is no wonder that the polls are day by day a disaster for this Government. Yesterday, the Tories’ ratings were below 30 per cent for the first time for eight years. The day before, 67 per cent said they thought that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were out of touch. Sixty-eight per cent think that the Budget shows that they can no longer even try to claim that we are all in this together. What is the Government’s answer to being thought out of touch? It is Lords reform. When the Government are described as incompetent, what is their answer? It is Lords reform.

The reform of your Lordships’ House is an important issue and one that we need to get right, but the idea that it is the most pressing issue facing the country is risible. We on these Benches will have more to say on these matters and on the Government’s priorities when we begin to debate the Government’s legislative programme next week, but we have in front of us today the report from the Joint Committee on the Government’s draft House of Lords Reform Bill, and alongside it we have the alternative report from the minority group of members of the Joint Committee. Both are important contributions to the debate on the future of your Lordships’ House.

The Joint Committee’s report makes many important points, but I particularly want to highlight just four: first, its conclusion that this House should have an electoral mandate provided it has commensurate powers; secondly, its conclusion that Clause 2 of the Government’s draft Bill, which seeks to preserve the primacy of the House of Commons simply by asserting it, is not in itself capable of preserving the Common’s primacy; thirdly, that work should begin as soon as possible on re-examining the conventions between the two Houses of Parliament as specified in an earlier report by the Joint Committee on Conventions, chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling, which is something that I advocated a long while ago and in doing so was accused by the Deputy Leader of this House of being a reform refusenik; and fourthly, the Joint Committee’s recommendation that,

“in view of the significance of the constitutional change brought forward for an elected House of Lords, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum”.

These are important points, but I accept that they are not points on which every Member of your Lordships’ House will be able to agree. I know, for example, that some Members of this House, on all sides of the House, are not in favour of this House having an electoral mandate, although I am sure that the Joint Committee’s insertion of the important qualification that an elected House of Lords needs to have powers commensurate with that electoral mandate will interest all Members of the House.

I also know that there will be Members of your Lordships’ House who are not convinced of the need for a referendum. In this, I do not mean Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches who are following the bizarre insistence of the Deputy Prime Minister that a referendum is not necessary. No one would suggest for a moment that this opposition to a referendum is anything to do with the outcome of last year’s AV referendum, a referendum that the Deputy Prime Minister embraced with as much enthusiasm as he has in refusing to embrace a referendum on Lords reform. As an aside, I am not a betting woman—well, not often—but I just put the notion to this House that if there is a Bill on Lords reform in next week’s Queen’s Speech, at some stage during what I suspect will be a very difficult parliamentary passage without necessarily a clear conclusion in prospect, proposals for a referendum will go into the Bill.

Far be it from me to offer advice to the Government, but it would be much better for the Government, whether the Tory part or the Lib Dem part, to acknowledge what I believe is the inevitable and accept that a constitutional change of this level of importance requires a referendum. The Government should stop trying to deny the British people a voice on this issue, and that is the position of these Benches.

Labour will make it clear in its response to the Queen’s Speech that it will take a close look at whatever proposals for further Lords reform the Government bring forward. We have seen the Government’s draft Bill but, for instance, we do not believe that the Government can seriously attempt to proceed with Clause 2 of the draft Bill, mentioned by the Leader, given that, as the Joint Committee’s report makes clear, it has no support at all beyond the ministerial opinions of Mr Clegg and Mr Mark Harper.

We do not know what Bill we will get yet, but we on these Benches will test it against three criteria: a referendum, dealing properly with the issues of powers and conventions, and our policy of a fully elected House. I know that there are those around this House, including a number behind me, who would not agree with all those criteria. I acknowledge and accept those differences, which reflect views that are strongly, passionately and legitimately held. I know that we will hear those differences in the two days of debate in front of us, and they are clearly displayed in both the report of the Joint Committee and the alternative report of the minority group. However, I urge that these differences of view are respected, whether they are held by Members of your Lordships’ House or by individuals and organisations beyond. Strong argument on the issue is right and to be welcomed.

Significantly, I believe that what we see in the alternative report from the minority group of the Joint Committee is just a difference of opinion. We see clear disagreement, but I welcome the fact that the minority group has set out with equal clarity the areas and issues on which it agrees. These areas include: the functions of this House; the greater assertiveness that an elected House would unquestionably wield against the House of Commons; the role of the Bishops in your Lordships’ House, the prospect of introducing representatives of other faith groups, and the importance of diversity; the application of the Parliament Acts; and the importance of a referendum. I am sure the whole House will agree that these issues are vital.

Individual Members of your Lordships’ House will make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions on the areas in which the minority group makes clear that it does not agree with the Joint Committee—in most cases because it wanted to go further than the Joint Committee felt it was able to go, given its narrow remit of scrutinising only the Government’s draft Bill. These areas include the importance of the primacy of the House of Commons—and I note the emphasis given in the alternative report to the authoritative view of Erskine May of what the primacy of the House of Commons rests on and why—as well as issues such as accountability, constituency issues in an elected House of Lords, transitional arrangements for Members of the current House, and the cost of an elected House.

We on these Benches support the criticism made by my noble friend Lord Richard earlier today and by the minority group of the Government’s refusal to provide proper costings for an elected House, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for the work that he has done. We give notice that we will seek to hold the Government to their commitment, given just last week, that in the wake of the publication of these reports they will now provide accurate figures of what an elected House of Lords will cost so that at a time of national austerity the public can take those important views and facts into account.

The minority group makes a strong case for all these issues to be considered by a constitutional convention. The case made by the minority group is interesting. The reform of your Lordships’ House is important but it suggests that such a convention should also consider what would happen to the House of Lords, the House of Commons and Parliament as a whole, as well as to the union itself if the people of Scotland were to vote in a referendum in favour of independence. The vexed issue of the West Lothian question also remains on the table, and that should not be considered in isolation. A constitutional convention might also be suitable for considering the impact of such issues on the other devolved areas and the Assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland.

Since 1997, we have seen a significant programme of constitutional reform, which we on this side of the House believe was well considered, well thought through and well grounded, such as devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This reform was necessary and has the support of the people. However, since 2010 we have seen proposed constitutional reform that has been none of these things: for example, the political gerrymandering of what is now the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Act; the political partiality of what is now the Fixed-term Parliaments Act; the decisive outcome of the AV referendum; and, finally, the bad Bill that is the Government’s draft legislative proposal on further House of Lords reform. These issues should have been properly thought through, and they were not. I therefore understand the argument made that the constitutional convention has merit in being a vehicle that could consider these and allied issues.

I am sure that there will be great interest in the recommendation of the consideration given to indirect elections to the House of Lords, including the idea of the secondary mandate. I welcome the proposals put forward in evidence to the Joint Committee by the former Lord Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, formerly of these Benches, for what she described as ground-clearing reforms. Of course, I welcome too the advance that the legislation put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has made and hope that it can be expedited in the coming Session.

There are many constructive proposals that would aid the reform of this House and which I believe many on all sides consider to be necessary. The Joint Committee and the alternative report have raised a plethora of vital issues that have not been properly thought through in the Government’s draft Bill, including the application or otherwise of the Parliament Act to a reformed House. We shall see what comes before us when the Government set out their legislative programme in the gracious Speech next week. The Bill on further reform of this House may be better than the draft Bill considered by the Joint Committee. I certainly hope so.

The reform of this House has a long history. In its most recent incarnation, it has been going on for the past 100 years. For some, such as the Deputy Prime Minister, it is an absolute priority. However, I am doubtful that the public, facing the problems that they are facing, would agree with that priority. Real reform of your Lordships’ House is not a matter for easy slogans. Constitutional reform is a deeply serious matter, the purpose of which cannot be to try to glue the coalition together, albeit at the top. As my right honourable friend Sadiq Khan MP, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, has forcefully said:

“Avoiding the promotion of political and constitutional reform on the basis of short-term expediency is imperative”.

Reform is a matter of careful consideration. I am confident that over the next two days, Members of your Lordships’ House will bring precisely that approach of careful consideration to the issues before us. I believe that both reports before us today are an important contribution to that, and I look forward to the debate ahead.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. The coalition agreement provided for the Deputy Prime Minister to establish an all-party group, which would come forward in a Motion, I think from memory, by December 2010. The noble Baroness served on that group. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde in his remarks implied that the draft Bill, which has been considered, was somehow connected with the deliberations of that group. Will the noble Baroness tell us what happened to the Deputy Prime Minister’s committee and how its conclusions are in any way related to this Bill?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I was proud and privileged to be a member of that group, as the noble Lord said. However, during our deliberations, it became clear that there were various issues on which there was no meeting of minds. Towards the end of our deliberations the group stopped meeting. A draft Bill was published that, it might be fair to say, did not have the full support of all members of that committee.

House of Lords Reform

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, before formally moving the Business of the House Motion on the Order Paper, I should like to make a short business Statement about forthcoming business.

The whole House is now well aware that the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill published its long-awaited report this morning. The Government are not only deeply grateful to the committee but would like to single out its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for the time, effort and expertise that have gone into the preparation of this report. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues will be considering the report with great care before proposing a Bill to the Cabinet.

I am equally conscious that noble Lords around the House are eager to debate the report at the earliest opportunity. I have considered this with the usual channels and, although there will be plenty of opportunities to debate the report from the Joint Committee, subject to the completion of our legislative business by the end of Thursday of this week, I propose that we should start with a debate on the Joint Committee’s report, led by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on Monday of next week.

I should add that should the Queen’s Speech on 9 May include a Bill to reform the composition of this House, there will be a further opportunity to debate the Government’s proposals in light of the Joint Committee’s report in the course of the debate on the humble Address—that is to say, in about a fortnight’s time. These two imminent occasions for debate may well be followed by others over the course of the next Session, for which I know a few noble Lords may be limbering up. I hope that we will manage to complete our legislative business by Thursday so I look forward to next week’s debate. In the mean time, I take the opportunity of reminding the House that copies of the Joint Committee’s report are available in the Printed Paper Office and, most importantly, on the Parliament website.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader for his business Statement and I welcome the fact that the Leader, with the agreement of the usual channels, is hoping to make time available for a debate on the report of the Joint Committee on the Government’s draft House of Lords Reform Bill. I am sure that the debate will also cover the alternative report, which was published today. However, I am sorry that the Leader of the House has chosen not to make a fuller Statement on the Joint Committee report today.

Before the Recess, I urged the Government both to make time for a debate on further reform of your Lordships’ House, which the noble Lord has done, and to recognise the fact that Members of your Lordships’ House would wish today, as the House returns from a prolonged Recess, to have an initial discussion on these issues. I recognise the fact that we will have many debates on this issue in the House in the weeks and months to come.

I think that this House, and indeed many beyond the House, will find it hard to understand why all sorts of people and organisations have been debating these matters today, and yet, apart from the noble Lord’s brief business Statement, this House is not afforded an opportunity today to speak further about the issue. Indeed, the Leader was on “The Daily Politics” show and in recent days we have heard many things about a revolt by Conservative MPs on the 1922 Committee. We have seen various reports of a revolt being joined first by MPs, then by parliamentary Private Secretaries—many things have been happening.

We have been told that the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that he “won’t go to war” over Lords reform and the Prime Minister spoke of the issue on the “Today” programme this morning. We have been told all this and more, but we do not have an opportunity to discuss these things today in this House. Of course, we will all need time to examine and consider the report of the Joint Committee and the alternative report of the minority group of the Joint Committee. I have read both reports and think that they are excellent and extremely important contributions to the debate on the future of your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and all those involved, for their hard work and commitment.

I urge all Members of this House and people beyond to read and study both reports closely because we need to get reform right, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, said today. We on these Benches regret that there was not a more formal Statement on these issues today, but we look forward to the debate in a week’s time.

[Lord Laming]

My Lords, I am sure that all members of the Cross-Bench group wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and all the members of his team—the committee that did this study—and indeed to the work of all the members in producing the extremely helpful alternative report. One waits for one report and two come along. This is a subject of immense importance to the citizens of our society. We owe it to them to make sure that Parliament is as effective as possible in holding the Executive to account and in scrutinising future legislation.

I am sure that members of the Cross-Bench group, who I have not had the chance to consult on this, are grateful to the usual channels and to the Leader for his Statement because we think that the report should be considered very carefully. I am sure that the arrangements for a debate next Monday will be welcomed by Cross-Benchers.

Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill [HL]

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I have to admit that this is a trifle contrived, because it relates to a future Bill, rather than the Bill in question. However, noble Lords will be aware that it has been announced that the Joint Committee report on Lords Reform will be published on 23 April. Will the Leader of the House join me in deploring the leaks, of which there have already been two in the past three days? I will be writing to the noble Lord the Leader of the House today to request that a Statement be made on the Joint Committee report on 23 April, and to suggest that we have a debate on the joint report, preferably before Prorogation.

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

My Lords, contrived or not, I know that this is an issue of great interest to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, who is chairman of the Joint Committee of both Houses, is in his place today. Whether or not there have been leaks—inspired or not—I deplore all leaks, by the Government or anyone else. However, it is a matter for the chairman and the committee itself; it is not a matter for me. I do not know whether it is true—I am sure that it is—that, as the noble Baroness said, it will be published on 23 April. The original date for the committee to finish its work was yesterday and I hope it might be able to publish a little sooner than 23 April, but maybe that will be subject to confirmation. I look forward to receiving a letter from the noble Baroness. I must say—I am speaking without any particular brief on this—it is hard to see how we can have a government Statement on the same day as the publication of a great report that has been nine months in gestation and on which 26 Members of Parliament and of this House, including Cross-Benchers and a bishop, sat, but I will see what can be done over the next couple of weeks.

Procedure of the House

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

As an amendment to the above Motion, at the end to insert “, but with the fourth bullet point in paragraph 10 left out and replaced with the following words:

“That all government Bills introduced in the House of Commons should be considered in Grand Committee, apart from major constitutional Bills and emergency legislation and other exceptionally controversial Bills”.”

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Chairman of Committees for moving the Motion on the reports. All the proposals contained in the reports have their roots in the recommendations of the report of the Leader’s Group on Working Practices chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad. We on these Benches support moves to improve and modernise the working practices of your Lordships’ House. While not everyone would necessarily agree with every recommendation from the Leader’s Group, we recognise that the group made a constructive and coherent attempt to bring forward improvements, building on the work originally put in place by the former Lord Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Similarly constructive attempts were made in the past on these Benches, in groups chaired by my noble friends Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Grocott. However, their recommendations related to a different, more iterative process in relation to Grand Committees.

All these constructive attempts shared another characteristic: they were all packages intended to bring forward balanced proposals for reform that would be of benefit to the House as a whole, not necessarily to the Executive or the Opposition. We on these Benches argue that this should have been—and still should be—the approach taken to the Goodlad proposals. However, the impression given is that of a piecemeal, cherry-picking approach that brings forward proposals that seek to advantage the Executive at the expense of our self-regulating House. That is what is in front of your Lordships today.

I know that there is some anxiety on all sides of the House about the order in which the recommendations were considered by the respective committees, and about the proposals brought before the House. There is some suspicion, for example, about the timing of the proposals to put more Bills into Grand Committee, especially at a time when our forthcoming Recess has been extended because of lack of business. On all Benches there is a constant demand—not new under this Government, I have to confess—for less, rather than more, legislation; and press briefings inform us that the next Session is likely to be relatively light apart from the vexed issue of Lords reform. Proposals stemming from the Goodlad group should be brought forward in a way that is strategic, systematic, coherent and consistent.

In moving my amendment, I shall deal with two issues before us today: Grand Committees and Questions for Written Answer. We on these Benches agree with the principle of considering more Bills in Grand Committee. Scrutiny in Grand Committee, especially of technical Bills, is enhanced in many ways. Certainly at present the Grand Committee has more capacity for the scrutiny of Bills and should be properly utilised. The proposals originally brought forward by the Leader of the House appear to take more power for the Executive but, although they are framed in terms of increasing the timing of sittings of Grand Committee, from discussions with the usual channels I heard and understood that the principal objective of the Leader of the House was not greater time but greater flexibility in the use of Grand Committee, and of course I welcome that. Indeed, I understand that the Leader has written to Cross-Bench Peers along those lines. Even so, I am aware that many on the Benches behind me have strong reservations about the proposals. We sought to work through the usual channels constructively to try to find clarifications of the proposals for the benefit of the whole House. I had hoped that such clarifications could be agreed, but I am sorry to report that agreement proved not to be possible.

We tried very constructively but agreement was eventually not forthcoming. Accordingly, I tabled the amendment standing in my name that seeks to reinsert the formula originally proposed by the Leader’s Group—a proposal that had support from all parties, and from Members of no party, across your Lordships’ House. My amendment to the report from the Procedure Committee will not have been a surprise to members of that committee, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said. On each and every occasion when the proposals were discussed, I put forward strong arguments in favour of retaining the criteria contained in the Goodlad proposals—namely, that emergency Bills, constitutional Bills and other exceptionally controversial Bills should not be dealt with in Grand Committee. This is in complete accord with the recommendations of the 1994 Rippon report, upon which I understand the recommendations were drafted.

The noble Lord the Leader may well say later that the wording of the proposal before us—

“That there should be a presumption that Government bills introduced in the House of Commons should be committed to a Grand Committee, except where the Usual Channels agree otherwise”—

is less prescriptive and allows greater flexibility. I disagree. Rather, such a presumption seeks to increase the power and influence of the Executive, altering the balance between the Executive and your Lordships’ House in favour of the Executive, Ministers and the Government. I urge noble Lords to support my amendment in order to ensure that the proper balance between the Executive and a self-regulating House of Lords is retained. That is the effect of my amendment and the balance that I believe this House needs and wants to strike.

On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that the report should be referred back to the committee, a range of issues should be considered, including the timings of Grand Committees and the implication for resources. We have some sympathy with the desire of the Leader of the House for there to be more flexibility in the hours of work of the Grand Committee. That is why we tried as hard as we did to agree clarification, which would have aided the whole House.

I am glad that the proposals before us no longer reflect the Goodlad recommendation that Grand Committees should meet in the morning, because I agree with the noble Lord the Leader that such timings would inconvenience the whole House. Rather than the Grand Committee being able to sit until 10 pm, my strong preference, as I argued in meetings of the Procedure Committee and the House Committee, would be to end it by 8.30 pm with no supper break. Apart from being more convenient for Members of the House, it would enable the Administration to plan its resources and thus keep down costs. Of course, if more Bills were to be considered in Grand Committee where votes are not taken, more time than usual would be needed for Report, to enable votes on a greater number of issues. We found that in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Crickhowell]

My Lords, I have spent nearly 43 years in Parliament, 17 of them in the other place. When I am urged by Ministers to give more time for amendments to be debated, I confess to being just a little cynical and a little doubtful that that is what is really intended. In those 43 years, I have learnt that the principal weapon that Members of both Houses have in controlling an Executive who are all too eager to bring forward legislation is time. Time and again, we find that the amendments that get accepted come at the end of a Session, when the Government of the day run out of time and are forced to accept them. Therefore, when I see a proposal being supported by my noble friend the Leader of the House on the grounds that Members of this House need more time and greater ability to put forward more amendments and debate them endlessly, I confess that I hesitate to accept that that can be the entire motivation.

I will make three brief points about the timing of this proposition and its introduction. First, as has already been referred to, it is a little ironic suddenly to be told that we can have a week off after we have spent 25 days in this House debating one of the most controversial Bills that any of us can remember. However, I will not dwell on that for too long.

Secondly, there has been a change of timetable, bringing the debate on this Motion forward from tomorrow to today. Reference has already been made to this, and I understand that the proposal came not from my noble friend the Leader but through the usual channels. I was in the House until quite late on Thursday afternoon. By the time that statement was made, and certainly by the time it was understood, a large number of Members had left. It was only on Thursday afternoon that discussions among the handful who were still around made us realise that we would be debating this important Motion. I know that there was a download at the bottom of the message that the Whips sent out. However, I suspect that on a sunny weekend not every Member downloads those messages, or takes in what the whole argument is about. The timing was unfortunate from that point of view.

Thirdly and crucially, we all know that this proposal is coming forward for a trial period to coincide with the introduction of the most controversial and important constitutional measure of our time. I would call it the “Abolition of the House of Lords Bill”. However, whatever you call it, I cannot think of a worse time to introduce a trial of this kind without stirring up the suspicion that those who control the business of the House have that in mind. I am not making that accusation, although I do think that it was a little unwise, or a little unusual, of my noble friend the Leader of the House—for whom I have the greatest possible respect—to send a letter to Members of this House, signed jointly with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, urging them to go along with this proposal.

I asked my noble friend at a meeting that I had with him just after two o’clock this afternoon, which I shall come to, whether an identical—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in full flow. However, it is very interesting that all Members of this House, apart from my own Benches, received a copy of this explanatory letter from the Leader of the House.

[Lord Crickhowell]

I am interested in that point, because I expressly asked the Leader of the House in his room, at about 2.05 pm, whether all Members had received the same letter. He told me that actually a rather different letter had been sent to, I think, the Cross Benches. I am merely quoting my noble friend, no more.

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

I offered the noble Baroness a letter. I rewrote it several times last week. Sadly, she refused to accept it.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the situation. Forgive me, but we had agreed that we would have an exchange of letters which we would find mutually acceptable, which could then be put in the Library of the House. That is quite a different letter from the one that other noble Lords received.

[Lord Crickhowell]

That is rather an interesting exchange. It has magnified what I had intended to say. However, it was also a little unusual. This is a House matter, and normally we leave the introduction of such measures for individual Members of this House. It is a little unusual—I am not saying it is unique—to have a letter of that kind. It is also slightly unusual to receive an urgent message to get in touch with the Leader’s Office. I was on the train up from Wales, and I was asked to go and meet him. As usual we had the most civilised and delicate discussion about these matters, in which we agreed to differ. I explained that I would be opposing this Motion because I think that the timing is catastrophically unfortunate. I do not think that it should be introduced as an experiment when we are going to have this major Bill before us, with the suspicion that will inevitably arise—and has arisen—that the decks are being cleared.

I also support almost everything else that my noble friend Lord Cormack said. He referred to the possibility of the kind of disciplines being introduced into this House that have been introduced in the Commons. Indeed, the letter from my noble friend the Leader says that this measure is being introduced in order to avoid,

“having to introduce Commons-style restrictions on members’ ability to table amendments”.

Is it a threat? I hope not.

I am totally opposed to doing this at this time. I am glad that the proposals that we should sit in the morning, which I spoke against long ago, have been withdrawn. I do not think that this set of proposals is any more acceptable. The wisest thing now would be for my noble friend the Leader, and those responsible, to listen to what has been said and to take the proposals away and reconsider them. If he will not agree to do that and my noble friend Lord Cormack presses his amendment to the Motion, I will vote for it, and I hope that it will be widely supported in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, you do not have to be a mathematician to work out that the 37 per cent of the House which makes up the coalition is not a majority.

I support the view on presumption because the experience of this Session shows that there are Bills that we could and should be sending to Grand Committee but do not, and that this detracts from the time we have available to spend on those Bills that do merit consideration on the Floor of the House and on other kinds of business. Let me give some examples. If the Academies Bill had gone to Grand Committee, perhaps we need not have sat at 11 o’clock in the morning to take the Health and Social Care Bill. If the Postal Services Bill had gone to Grand Committee, perhaps we need not have finished the proceedings on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill at two o’clock in the morning.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord the Leader of the House, but as all noble Lords will recall, the Academies Bill was the first Bill to be introduced in this House, and there was simply no other business. The Health and Social Care Bill came forward towards the end of the parliamentary Session, and therefore it is inconceivable that had the Academies Bill been taken in Grand Committee, it would have made an iota of difference to the Health and Social Care Bill.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, if it made no difference, presumably the noble Baroness would not have refused, as she did, to put it into Grand Committee in the first place.

We could make better use of this Chamber. Let me give another example. Last December, the Grand Committee had an urgent debate on the eurozone crisis attended by some 50 Members of the House. The Chamber was not available because the Protection of Freedoms Bill was in Committee of the whole House with about a dozen participants. Many noble Lords at the time raised the question whether we were using the time in the Chamber wisely. The presumption, which the Procedure Committee recommends—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am terribly sorry, but I have to set the record straight. The Protection of Freedoms Bill was an interesting Bill because it was the very first time that the House as a whole agreed that half of the Bill would be taken in Grand Committee and the most controversial aspects would be taken on the Floor of the House. Therefore, I think a very good agreement was brought to bear in that instance.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have no quarrel with the decision the noble Baroness made in that instance. The noble Baroness thinks I am getting at her—I will get at her in a moment, but I am not getting at her for that. I am simply pointing out that these were decisions—we took them using the usual channels and we took them together—to do things in a certain way. I am simply suggesting that in retrospect we might have done them rather differently and in a way that might have suited more Members of the House.

The presumption that the Procedure Committee recommends will also not open the floodgates to a Commons-style system, where the bulk of Committee stages are taken off the Floor of the House for two simple reasons; first, because the House will not let it. If this Report is agreed to, no Bill will go to Grand Committee without the express permission and agreement of this House. Therefore, the House will, quite rightly, retain control of which Bills go to Grand Committee, a point that my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief because, fortunately, none of the points made in the debate on the report require an answer from me. As I said in the first place, the committee was not unanimous on this subject and therefore my position is completely neutral. On the question of Questions for Written Answer, there was not a voice against the proposal in the Procedure Committee’s report.

I must apologise to the House, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I was misinformed that he was going to move the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves: he is not going to do so. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for agreeing that we could take his matter back to the committee. I now leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to decide what to do with her amendment, and after that we shall move on to those of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to this excellent short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made a cogent case and has been strongly supported by noble Lords from all sides of the House. He is right that we must not put ourselves in danger of becoming a regulated House with timetabling. I also note that the noble Lord the Leader said that he hoped we would never lose our freedom not to be timetabled, and I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to keep him to that hope.

Parliament must be able to hold the Executive to account, and time must always be allowed for proper scrutiny of legislation. To do otherwise is to shift the balance of power in favour of the Executive. I note that the noble Lord said that, before a Bill is committed to Grand Committee, there might well be a vote in this Chamber to decide whether it should be so committed or debated here on the Floor of the House. I simply point out that the noble Lord and his Benches have a political majority in this House, and I imagine that on such an occasion there would be a whipped vote. I believe therefore that this would hand power to the Executive.

Presumption is clearly dangerous, as we have all agreed in the debate. I understand the concern expressed around the Chamber about the prescription of the Goodlad committee’s proposals—and, indeed, of my own amendment—and the difficulty of defining “controversial”. Defining “constitutional” is a lot more straightforward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made an important contribution—I wish her a happy birthday—and I concur with her comments and those of the noble Lord the Leader about our joint admiration for the bravery and principles of Lord Newton of Braintree, who I believe we are all proud to call our noble friend.

I also agree with the noble Baroness that to deal in isolation with the issue of the hours that the Grand Committee should sit and the Bills that should be referred to it sets back both the process and the progress of reform. On the basis that I believe the House will vote in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I am happy to withdraw my own amendment. I hope that his amendment will be passed and that when the matter is referred back to the Procedure Committee—of which I am proud to be a member—it will listen to representations from around the House, so that when a proposal is brought forward in future it truly will be reflective of the views of the House as a whole. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Liaison Committee: Third Report

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I was about to explain to your Lordships why that core function is pointless compared to the work that the other Select Committees do in this House—and we have heard of powerful examples from the Science and Technology Committee. All the other committees are taken very seriously in this country and worldwide, whereas the debates of the European Committee in your Lordships’ House are ill attended and do nothing to inform public opinion about how the European Union works—and its membership, as I have said again and again, is solidly Europhile. We have just had two interventions to prove that.

The noble Lord, Lord Roper, has told us that the committee scrutinises very effectively European legislation. It writes to Ministers. But your Lordships will be aware of the scrutiny reserve, an agreement whereby successive Governments have given an assurance, although it is not a legal assurance, to both Houses of Parliament that if a piece of legislation is under scrutiny the Government of the day will not sign up to it in Brussels unless that committee agrees. Written Answers from the Government show that that has been overridden hundreds of times in the past 10 years—I think it is 343 times in the past five years.

I mention all this only to show that we put all this effort into the European Union committees and get very little out of them. I am sorry to offend noble and Europhile Lords, and I hope that the House does not think that I am banging on again about Europe. But hearing the comments about the eminent scientists in this Room who have spoken only for the Science and Technology Committee, and looking at the other committees, which are full of expertise and widely respected in the country and internationally, I fear that we have the balance wrong. Two or three European committees, including the main one, would be quite enough. We should redirect those energies into committees that will serve the House and the country well.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I hear the debate that we have had this evening but I have to say that I support the recommendations from the Liaison Committee, which closely follow the proposals from the report of the Leader’s Group. I warmly welcome the recommendation that two new cross-cutting and ad hoc committees should be set up, although my preference would have been for an appointment of two and a half years to enable the committees themselves to deliberate on the subjects of the report and to enable the committees to follow up the conclusions of the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, suggested.

I also welcome the proposals on pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny, which I believe to be extremely important. If there is to be new draft legislation on adoption, as suggested by the Prime Minister, I would be grateful for an assurance from the Chairman of Committees that it will not be introduced until the post-legislative scrutiny has been concluded.

The decisions regarding the European Committee and the Science and Technology Committee were not easy. In fact, they were extremely difficult. There were hard choices, and it is never a good time to bring about change. Of course, many noble Lords are concerned that, by reducing the number of European sub-committees from seven to six, we are diminishing the importance that this House rightly gives to proper scrutiny of EU documents and proposals, and diminishes our standing as a House of expertise. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I am confident that the excellent and much needed scrutiny will continue with six sub-committees and a slightly larger membership, if the committees wish to enlarge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Would the noble Baroness not just sail over it? Would she care to comment on the override by the Government of hundreds of scrutiny reserves in the past few years?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I would not care to comment on that at the moment, but I am grateful for the invitation from the noble Lord. I was going to say how much the House as a whole rightly regards the work of the Science and Technology Committee. Clearly, the breadth of knowledge inside that committee, along with the understanding and the influence of the reports, is phenomenal, and I am sure that that will continue. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, resources are scarce. Throughout our deliberations in the committee, I have argued for additional resources to be made available for an additional committee, and I will continue to make that argument in the coming year, so that when we have deliberations at this time next year, I may well be able to argue in favour of more work for the Science and Technology Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made a very good speech here and in Committee, and I have supported him in his arguments throughout. However, I support the report from the committee that is before us today, and I urge the whole House to adopt it. Should there be a vote, I wish to make it clear that the people on my Benches will have a free vote.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I know that I am going to disappoint noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It is not my purpose, but I think it is the result of the report published by the Liaison Committee that I support. As the House knows, the report proposes that more of our resources should go to one-year inquiries set up by the House for a specific purpose and with a specific membership—what we call ad hoc committees. That is a change of direction from the way in which we have dealt with things before, and I believe that it is right that these proposals for ad hoc committees should come from Back-Benchers. If this report is agreed to, I look forward to a meeting of the Liaison Committee next December when we consider a really good range of proposals for new ad hoc committees proposed by Back-Benchers around the House.

The whole point of this report is that it provides more opportunities for a broader range of Members to take part in the committee work of this House, and for those committees to be timely and to engage us in debate. The committees are meant to inform the House on subjects that we consider important. That is not to take away anything that the Science and Technology Committee does and has done. After all, this report is a package of recommendations. If it is agreed to, new resources will be made available to the Committee Office.

The report is also clear that some trimming of existing committees is required if we are to set up the new committees as proposed, and we have limited the trimming to a single sub-committee of the European Union Committee. The reason was asked by my noble friend Lord Jopling and indeed by the noble Lords, Lord Roper, Lord Grenfell, and others. They asked why we pick on the EU Committee, and the answer is, not because we do not value its work but because it absorbs by far the largest proportion of the House’s Select Committee resources—eight committees in total—and so it is the obvious place to look when trying to release resources. This is also why, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Roper, the Liaison Committee was already minded to propose the change before hearing from the noble Lord. It was in no sense any disrespect to him as chairman or indeed to the quality of the work that he has done.

The second place was the Science and Technology Committee and its sub-committees. We felt that, in the future, the resources should be that of a single Select Committee. The reason why we suggest that is that it would put it on the same resource footing as the Constitution Committee, the Communications Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee, which itself appoints a sub-committee.

Of course, this House has a notable reputation in science and technology, but there are other fields of experience and interest in this House, and I suggest we should make use for them. However, I stress that there is no reason why Back-Benchers cannot propose technical and scientific subjects to the Liaison Committee as subjects for ad hoc committees. There is also no reason why, in future Sessions, we should not re-examine this decision. I am in favour of trying out pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and others. It may be that in a couple of Sessions’ time we find that it is not a good use of the House’s resources and that we should look again at the situation in the Science and Technology Committee.