Oral Answers to Questions

Charles Kennedy Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course, the police have had to absorb 20% reductions in their budget and it is extraordinary—we should all pay tribute to police forces up and down the country for this—that they have none the less equally presided over a decline in crime rates to historically very low levels indeed. I am extremely confused this morning—[Interruption.] Let me explain, and the confusion will then be on the other side of the House, not on this side. The Labour party has vilified the coalition Government, day in, day out, for taking difficult decisions to balance the books, but I read this morning that it would actually inflict more cuts on local government and would not relieve the public sector pay restraint on millions of people in the public sector. I would be interested to know what Labour’s solution really is. It criticises us for things it now apparently wants to do itself.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to acknowledge that one of the singular successes of the Scottish referendum campaign was the engagement of new first-time voters from the age of 16 and above? Given the imminent general election, will he encourage local authorities throughout the United Kingdom to build on that groundswell of young people’s engagement with politics—I cannot believe, and I am sure my right hon. Friend does not, that what happened in Scotland is not a reflection of the level of potential interest that exists throughout the rest of the UK as well—with a view to building, perhaps in a future Parliament, what Holyrood is likely to do for next year’s Scottish elections and extending the franchise for House of Commons and all levels of parliamentary elections in the future?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope that those who doubt the wisdom of moving towards extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds—there are, of course, some in this House who still doubt it—will look carefully at the experience of the Scottish referendum, which mobilised huge public participation not only across all communities and age groups, but, perhaps most especially, among 16 and 17-year-olds. I think that any doubts anyone might have had about the wisdom of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds should be dispelled by that experience. I, like my right hon. Friend, look forward to a time when we have genuine cross-party consensus about giving all 16 and 17-year-olds across the United Kingdom the right to vote.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charles Kennedy Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady knows, we are confident that we are doing everything we can—we are taking a belt-and-braces approach—to ensure that registration levels do not fall. We have learned from the experience of Northern Ireland and have worked on a consensual, cross-party basis to get this right, because all parties accept that we need to move to individual voter registration. I do not anticipate that the situation she predicts will arise.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Assuming that the next boundary review will be—we hope—on a UK basis, will the Deputy Prime Minister look at the unhappy experience of this Parliament and the exceptions that were granted for the Isle of Wight, and the northern and western isles? The manifest absence of any such willingness to appreciate the vast geography of the several constituencies of the highlands and islands of Scotland means that my constituency has one Westminster MP and no fewer than eight Members of the Scottish Parliament serving it. That cannot make sense.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that, as the reviews occur in future, we shall need to be mindful, first, of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), ensuring that there is enough latitude in the rules so that boundary commissions are not forced to split up naturally formed communities; and, secondly, of the need not to create such unfeasibly large constituencies that it is almost impossible physically to represent them in this place.

European Council

Charles Kennedy Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the enlargement process has been successful in driving the development and improving the democracy and governance of many of these countries. I further agree with him about engaging with them now, because a country like Albania has huge challenges in terms of tackling corruption, embedding its democracy and developing its economy. In that context it is very important that when new countries get to join—Albania is a long way from that process—there will have to be a totally new approach to transitional controls.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Do not the antecedents of this problem go back to the fateful decision of the Prime Minister when he was running for his party leadership to approve the withdrawal of the British Conservatives from the European People’s party? Mr Juncker was the candidate of the EPP. Had the Prime Minister’s party been a member of it, it could have had influence in private, instead of impotence in public. That would have been good for the Prime Minister, good for his party, good for the Government and, my goodness, far better for Britain.

[The Prime Minister]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and it is good to see him in his place today, but I think he is profoundly wrong about this. Let me give two examples of why I think that. The Liberal Democrats are members of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, yet he was not able to stop the leading candidate process in that group; and the Labour party is a leading member of the Socialist Group, yet it was completely incapable of stopping the leading candidate process in that group. There were members of the EPP who did not approve of this but still could not stop it, so the idea that we would have been able to stop it within the EPP is complete nonsense.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charles Kennedy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. I have a great deal of respect for him but he has not noticed the creation of the combined authority in Yorkshire, which has brought together the councils in the area for precisely that purpose. It has included the signing of a city deal, which has been hailed by the people of Yorkshire, including the leader of Leeds city council, who says:

“This…spells…a fundamental shift in the relationship between Whitehall and the regions. It marks the first steps of a new era”

That will allow the north to “truly control” its “own destiny.” I think the hon. Gentleman should talk to Councillor Wakefield.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Would the Minister concur with the view that in the event of Scotland rejecting the independence option in September, the option of devolving power from Westminster and Whitehall represents a post-referendum way forward—but that it can be only one side of a two-sided coin, with the other being more re-dispersal of power within and across Scotland? The highlands and islands have lost power from Highlands and Islands Enterprise to Edinburgh, from the Crofting Commission to Edinburgh, and over regional and local control of our emergency services. That is not what those of us who were arguing for devolution before some Scottish National party Members were Members of this House had in mind.

[Greg Clark]

The policy and the practice of this Government has been to devolve power from this place to our great cities across the country. I do not think that has been the policy of the Administration in Scotland, who have centralised power and reduced the influence of our great cities north of the border.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Charles Kennedy Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

I follow on exactly from the comments of the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and her reminiscence but also her mild remonstrance, which is absolutely well made, that we are talking here about a politician. Certainly in the civil encounters with President Mandela in one capacity, and with Mr Mandela post-presidency in other capacities, not only was his sense of humour telling, but so was the self-deprecating use to which he put that humour, lest there was any thought that a political halo could be bestowed upon him. He certainly did not want that, and he would not want that to be part of his legacy today.

I mention humour because my first introduction to Nelson Mandela was far from fortuitous. He was then President, and enormous numbers of parliamentarians had somehow all descended on South Africa at the same time. They had come from New Zealand, Australia, here, Ireland, France—all on fact-finding missions. It was interesting that these fact-finding missions all coincided with the rugby world cup that was taking place in South Africa. Given that there were more visiting foreign politicians in the country than even visiting foreign rugby players, the President held a great gala reception. The leader of our delegation, my friend Rupert Redesdale, Liberal Democrat hereditary peer, was introducing the British delegation to the President, and he was pretty apprehensive in the presence of the great man. It came to my turn, and he said, “Mr President, one of my colleagues from the House of Commons in London. This is Nigel Kennedy.” The President’s characteristically firm handshake and jovial welcome confirmed two things for me there and then. First of all, he had never heard of Nigel Kennedy, but far more distressingly, he sure as hell had not heard of me either.

Things got worse on that visit. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), the then Member for Govan, who I am glad is in his place today—looking back, I was not so glad he was in his place on that occasion that evening—and I were photographed with President Mandela. What a wonderful memento to have. A few months later I was passing through Glasgow, my favourite city, and as I always do when I am there, I picked up a copy of the Glasgow Evening Times. The front page photo and lead story was that the South African Government had confirmed that the Clyde would be very much on the preferred bidders list for the latest warship that they were seeking interest in globally, and there was a photo of the hon. Gentleman and the President himself, with the caption, “Local MP, Ian Davidson, lobbying President Mandela on a recent visit to South Africa”. But the funny thing was that when I looked at the photo, I discovered that I had been airbrushed out of history. Perhaps that has been the story of my life ever since. I think, however, that President Mandela would have admired the hon. Gentleman’s guile, and the way in which he exploited that opportunity. He did not do it in a mendacious way, but it was not particularly helpful to me.

Another meeting that I recall took place when he was plain Mr Mandela again, post-presidency, when the years were beginning to show. It was the night of the concert in Trafalgar square and, as we would say at home, it was a gey dreich night. It was cold, windy and wet, with horizontal rain. Mr Mandela was tired, and he was wearing an overcoat. First, he insisted on working the room in South Africa House and speaking to everyone there. Then he went outside and enthralled the young, if rather soaked, audience who had been listening to the music. At that point, his minders were pretty keen to move him along and get him to his bed, which he clearly needed. But no—the coat came off and he came back up the stairs in South Africa House and worked the room again. We came face to face for a second time. He looked at me and said, “We talked earlier”, and I said, “Yes we did, Mr Mandela, it was an honour to meet you and we had a very nice chat.” “Oh good,” he said, “I will move on, but I did not want you to think I had been rude.” That is the difference, is it not? That was a man who, when he needed votes, could weigh them in quantities that we practising politicians can only dream of, yet when he was beyond the need for votes he still conducted himself with that extra special magic ingredient that separated him out, like the wheat from the chaff, from day-to-day jobbing politics the world over.

Today I am wearing the tie of Glasgow university, where I have the role of university rector. Glasgow gave Mandela the freedom of the city at a time when it was unfashionable to do so, and he came to celebrate that on another dreich day in the years following his release. Exactly a week ago, we were in this place paying tribute to those in Glasgow who had suffered as a result of the terrible helicopter crash. Many of the most heartfelt international tributes from outside this place came from South Africa. A week is a long time in politics. Last night, as rector of the university, I had the privilege of contributing to the beautiful annual carol service in the chapel. The format at the end was changed, so that instead of singing the university’s anthem “Gaudeamus igitur”, the choir sang a beautiful version of the rainbow nation’s wonderful national anthem. The thoughts that came to Glasgow from South Africa this time last week were returned with generosity and good will this week.

Mandela was in many ways simply the best. When President Obama said that we should not see his like again, I guess he was right on one level. But let us look at what Mandela did and at the fact that his words and deeds moved Table mountain, and let us hope that we do see his like again. Let us hope that we see his like in the middle east or in the vicinity of the Koreas, for example, where people are crying out for a generation of politicians of a quality that can move mountains and minds in the way that Mandela did. He reminds us that our trade need not be as awful as it is often depicted. He has given us something better to work for in ourselves.

Debate on the Address

Charles Kennedy Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker, for this early opportunity to make what will be a brief contribution to the debate. The debate coincides with ongoing family difficulties at home, so being able to get back to the highlands this evening rather than later is of very great assistance, and I am grateful for that. On that basis, I apologise to those on both Front Benches that, uncharacteristically, I will not be here for the wind-ups. I hope that they will understand.

As has been pointed out, this is the penultimate Queen’s Speech of this Parliament: there are now two years to go. I think that one political prediction on which we can all agree is that the next two years will go an awful lot more quickly than the last three years did. Whatever proposals are contained in the legislation outlined in the Queen’s Speech, the truth is that much of the politics in the next two years, and therefore at the next general election, will be conditioned not by what is in today’s speech, but by the wider economic scenario. We have welcomed the Queen to the Palace of Westminster today. Perhaps of more significance is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is welcoming the International Monetary Fund to the United Kingdom for its annual health audit. The implications for the economy will play as big a role in the next 18 months to two years as the proposals in front of us, important though they may be.

I welcome the reference in the Queen’s Speech to the second issue that will influence United Kingdom politics: the referendum in Scotland in 15 months’ time. The outcome will have a profound impact on not just Scottish politics, but UK politics in the run-up to the next Westminster general election. I was reassured to read that the Government

“will continue to make the case for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.”

Hear, hear. I give my unqualified support to the Deputy Prime Minister and the coalition on that. That case needs to be made, and is particularly significant coming from the coalition at Westminster. Even in the few months that have elapsed since January, when we debated the various orders that enabled the transference of powers to Edinburgh to hold the referendum and so on, it has been interesting to see the debate develop. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. I will not comment one way or the other, but I will say that we need to hear, both in Scotland and in the UK as a whole, more constructive Conservative voices in the debate.

When I came to the House in 1983, there was still a very viable Scottish Tory presence here, but I saw it erode and erode and eventually fall off the edge of the cliff. I have always felt that that was extremely dislocating and unhealthy, not just for Scottish politics but, by implication, for United Kingdom politics as a whole. Although I am not in the business of trying to resurrect conservatism—my loyalty to the coalition does not extend quite as far as that—I think that, on any rational basis, it is clear that there will be a very skewed constitutional dialogue and debate if the traditional, historic and continuing authentic voice of conservatism is not heard, and does not have a degree of resonance. I think that that should be borne in mind during our discussions about Scotland’s role within the UK, which I hope will remain a vibrant and vital one.

Talk of Scotland remaining part of the UK prompts a further question, which, I believe, goes to much of the heart of the Queen’s Speech: what kind of United Kingdom do those of us who want Scotland to remain part of it wish to see? In that regard, I think that the Liberal Democrat voice—and I shall be directing my few remarks almost exclusively to my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat wing of the coalition—is essential at this particular juncture.

First we have, up in lights, the issue of immigration. There is a sensible, constructive, rational argument to be had about that issue, but it should be preceded by a statement of principle, which, I am delighted to say, my right hon. Friend the leader of my party and Deputy Prime Minister has made many times. There are those of us in the House, and on the spectrum of British politics, who are unapologetic and unashamed in saying that, historically as well as in contemporary terms, the immigrant contribution to our economy and the values of our society has been immensely positive. It is something to be encouraged and celebrated, and it is not something in respect of which a Dutch auction on the back of UKIP and various other kenspeckle figures should be indulged in when it comes to how best to pursue the issue. That is an important aspect of the Liberal Democrat voice that needs to be heard—

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Kennedy]

As, indeed, does the voice of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington in regard to this very issue.

[Ms Abbott]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while we clearly want an efficient, fair immigration system which commands support, there is a danger of a downward spiral of anti-immigrant rhetoric which will not help anyone, and is in denial of the huge contribution that immigrants have made to this country over the years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kennedy]

Indeed. The hon. Lady has echoed my “Dutch auction” point. I think that many of us in all parties, including the Conservative party, have developed a sense of considerable unease—not least during the past few weeks of British politics, and perhaps during the past week in particular—about some of the siren voices that we are beginning to hear in this context. That is not healthy, it is not right, and it is misleading to people in this country, in historical terms as well as in terms of our contemporary position.

A second issue in respect of which I think the Liberal Democrats have a vital and valuable role to play—perhaps somewhat by default, but nevertheless this is where we find ourselves—is, of course, Europe. I am not going to become involved in the ins and outs of the ongoing Conservative party obsession, absolute unbelievable obsession, with Europe. However, I recall the days of the Maastricht treaty debates in the House and the so-called night watchmen of the time, including the present Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who was one of their leading lights. They kept the place going night after night, week after week, month after month, and almost brought the Government to their knees over the issue of Europe. Here we are, more than 20 years later, and little, if anything, has changed. This is an important opportunity for the Liberal Democrats to exploit.

[David T. C. Davies]

The right hon. Gentleman has accused us of having an obsession. Does he not agree that it is far better for us to discuss something that people out there are discussing than to ignore the voice of at least one in four people—perhaps as much as half the population—who think that it is high time we pulled out of the European Union?

[Mr Kennedy]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that is a judgment he must make. I do not want to trawl through a history lesson going back to the days of Maastricht, but the person I blame most on all of this is Tony Blair. He is the one Prime Minister who came into office with the wind behind him, and could have lanced the boil of the European issue for an entire political generation had he seized the opportunity. Sadly, he chose not to do so, which is why not only has it festered, but what began as a rather eccentric minority position is, as the hon. Gentleman says, now commanding 25% of the recent votes cast and, even more alarmingly, I suspect much more than 25% of the current parliamentary Conservative party.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I hoped the right hon. Gentleman would rejoice a little at the divisions within the Conservative party, because let us think about what has happened in the past when it has split along protectionist lines. First, it did that between Disraeli and Peel, which led to Gladstone leaving the Tory party and forming a Liberal Administration. When Joseph Chamberlain tried to do it in the early 20th century, it led to another Liberal Administration and a mass victory in 1906. Then when Baldwin tried it, he lost the general election and Labour formed its first Administration. So this is good news, isn’t it?

[Mr Kennedy]

I feel the spectre of Roy Jenkins with his hand on my shoulder as we speak. I say to the hon. Gentleman that in perhaps a more superficial, short-term, opportunistic political way, of which he is such an emblematic representative, one might well rejoice in the difficulties and internecine warfare that is reigniting within the ranks of British Conservatism on the European issue, but the truth is that what I was saying about Scotland applies equally to the United Kingdom’s relationship with the rest of Europe: it is extremely damaging for British interests that the British Conservative party is not anchored more in the mainstream. We have been seeing that since its crazy decision to take itself off into a rather loopy set-up within the European Parliament. That may provide some of us with a good opportunity to poke fun at the Conservatives, but it also means that the British voice and presence has been lost on more significant Committees and in more significant positions within the workings of the European Parliament, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister knows far better than I do from his direct experience during his days as an MEP. I therefore think a slightly more, perhaps not high-minded, but at least practical analysis of the current difficulties in that regard is pertinent, because I really do think that it is damaging our long-term national interests.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member and has been involved in the European issue for many years. He has been a Member of this House going back to the time of Maastricht, as many of us have. Does he now regret that he pushed so hard for us to join the euro, and is he pleased that his party was wrong on that?

[Mr Kennedy]

I have said before that I was wrong about that, although I would have put the issue of the single currency to a referendum. I criticised Tony Blair because he missed an opportunity early in his premiership, but as for decisions later on, I think that history has proved him more correct than those of us who were urging a different course of action—although the ultimate back-stop would have been the public through a referendum.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Kennedy]

I would like to move on from Europe, but not, of course, before the auld alliance has had its opportunity.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s speech greatly, but the problem, of course, is that the Gracious Speech is the coalition Government’s programme for government. While he is absolutely right to warn against the awful dog-whistle politics on immigration and Europe, this is a coalition Government set of policies. Is he telling the House today that it is his intention to oppose these particularly nasty measures?

[Mr Kennedy]

Well, on the immigration matters, let us see the detail first. We have got some initial inklings and there will probably be quite a lot of detailed and, I suspect, sticky debates to be had on some aspects of how this is going to be done. On Europe, the Prime Minister has made it clear in his letter to his parliamentary colleagues in just the last 24 hours that he cannot go in the direction many of them are urging precisely because it is a coalition Government. We can point to our presence having some constructive restraining interest, although I will enter one caveat, which is a challenge for the Liberal Democrat side of the coalition.

The snoopers’ charter is a controversial and high-profile issue, which has been fiercely argued in public, in this House and elsewhere only a matter of months ago—it is not in the Queen’s Speech. That is a significant example of the difference between having an unfettered majority Conservative Government and having a Conservative party in government that is having to take account of another set of views. Although Liberal Democrats are right to argue—my colleagues and I do so regularly—that we can temper this, prevent that, or perhaps improve on how something might otherwise have been done, the bigger challenge for us over the next couple of years, starting with this Queen’s Speech, comes from the fact that simply saying, “Vote for us. If you didn’t, it would be worse” is not the most persuasive of electioneering clarion calls. We have to turn that into a more persuasive pitch—we have two years in which to do so, and I am sure that we can.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Kennedy]

I give way to another occasional renegade.

[Mr Davis]

Very occasional.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the appeal of the Liberal party would be greater if it was sometimes more robust on some liberal causes? For example, in the previous Session the Liberal party let through the provision on secret courts, despite it being completely against its traditions of more than a century.

[Mr Kennedy]

I am not party to the internal machinations of coalition relationships, but the little that my antennae allow me to pick up—the right hon. Gentlemen must know this from his right hon. and hon. Friends—is that more than a few Conservatives, both within government and further afield in the parliamentary party, feel that these damn Liberals are enough of a fly in the ointment as it is, thank you very much, without the likes of him, of all people, encouraging us to become even more obstreperous. I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench have noted his constructive contribution, and I wish him well.

I have a final point to make on coalition politics. The Queen’s Speech, which I welcome—who among us could disagree with it—says that the Government remain committed to

“a fairer society where aspiration and responsibility are rewarded”.

D’accord, no problems there whatever. Earlier in the year, a number of Liberal Democrats could not give our support to the capping of welfare benefits and went a little further than the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) in our rebellion; we not only abstained, but took a few steps further in the direction of the alternative Lobby. Others among us have expressed our opposition to or voted against the so-called “bedroom tax”, certainly as it is constructed now. Governments have to nudge people in certain directions and influence behaviour, but the difficulty is that that is different from being drawn into the potential political quagmire of social engineering. The Lib Dem voice needs to be heard loudly on that, within the echelons of the coalition and among the public: in supporting reward for aspiration and responsibility we are not losing sight of the fact that those aspirations can sometimes be given adequate opportunity only if the Government of the day recognise their responsibility towards the social composition they have inherited; and we cannot necessarily achieve mission impossible with all our desired social reforms, given the country’s difficult demographic backdrop.

Therefore, the principles of social justice, which I hope will continue to underpin not only the Liberal Democrat contribution, but the conduct of the coalition as a whole, need to be heard, loud and clear, on the telling domestic issues, such as immigration, and on the absolutely critical international issues, such as Europe. On those issues and others, I believe that our Conservative colleagues, for reasons best known to themselves, are allowing a gap to open, rhetorically and in reality, in British politics, which, in terms of our responsibility in government, we must develop.

I notice that Labour is achieving up to a glass ceiling but seems to have difficulty getting much beyond that, so our voice needs to be heard all the more on such issues, unambiguously, without any sense of retreat, nipping and tucking, or dodging and weaving. On many of these vital matters, we are going to get too much of that from the Labour leadership over the next period. We should be clear, consistent and unafraid, because what we are saying needs to be heard, in much the same way as what we said about Iraq—even though many in this place thought there was not much of a vehicle for that—needed to be heard out there. Sometimes people will respect you even if they do not necessarily agree with you on the issue of the day. Let us not be afraid, let us give the Queen’s Speech our support, but let us use it as the launch pad for the next two vital years in British politics.

European Council

Charles Kennedy Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Among the most important things that Europe can do for growth are trade deals with the fastest growing parts of the world, completing the single market, and deregulating and cutting costs. All those are the agendas that Britain is driving forward and having greater success with than we have had for many years.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

On maximising British influence within Europe, in the early days of this Administration the Foreign Secretary gave voice to the aim and ambition of seeing more UK citizens secure positions within the European Commission. Can the Prime Minister give us an update as to how that strategy is working?

[The Prime Minister]

We are making some progress on this issue. I discussed it specifically with Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, who wants to see more British people involved in the Commission. I do not believe that it has to do with issues about pay; as I pointed out, Commission officials are rather better paid than members of our own Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, we are looking at all the potential barriers to make sure that Britain is punching its weight in the Commission and elsewhere.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Charles Kennedy Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

I will not follow immediately on from the tempting suggestion made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), because I want to direct the bulk of my remarks to the parliamentary Labour party.

I should begin by making my position clear because, as colleagues in my ranks and across the Floor of the House know, I have something of a reputation in this Parliament as a coalition sceptic, having not supported its formation. It is therefore with all the more enthusiasm that I am speaking strongly in favour of the coalition proposals, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon.

One of the things that has driven me in politics over the decades is that when one comes into the British House of Commons in a third-party position—I have been part of the Social Democratic party, the Alliance and the Lib Dems—there is an overwhelming sense, which we are seeing in this debate, that the forces of small c conservatism within both the principal parties are ranged against one. Today, colleagues on both sides of the House have said, “Of course I am in favour of the principle of House of Lords reform.” To listen to their rhetoric or to read it in Hansard, one would think that they had been lying awake at night for years fretting about this issue. They go on to say, “But not this reform,” “Not at this time,” “Not in this way,” “Not for these reasons,” “Not because of that political context,” and so on.

This debate is reminiscent of one of the first cross-party debates that took place when I was first elected in 1983, which was about televising the House of Commons. When I look at those, particularly from the House of Lords, who have been in the public prints over the weekend warning of the pestilence, plague and Niagara falls of misfortune that will descend upon our nation if we try to reform the House of Lords as outlined in today’s proposals, I recall, funnily enough, that many of the same voices, many of the same names and an awful lot of the same arguments were raised against the pernicious effect that televising the House of Commons would have. Had they lived in a different generation, those people would have had the same instincts and the same conservative gut reactions against votes for women. It goes on and on. That is why I make my plea to the Labour party in particular.

I listened to the Labour leader on BBC Radio 4’s “World at One” at lunchtime today, speaking no doubt with sincerity. When he says that Labour will oppose the programme motion, while supporting the principle of reform, in the best-case scenario he is being breathtakingly naive in parliamentary terms and in the worst-case scenario he is displaying abject party political cynicism. I hope that it is not the latter, because I think a lot more of him than that.

I say that because of my experience, some 20 years ago, of the Maastricht treaty. That is what this occasion reminds me of more than anything else. Labour held themselves together in opposition brilliantly under John Smith’s leadership. He had the rallying cry of the absence of the social chapter, which united Eurosceptics and Euro-enthusiasts in the Labour ranks. That kept the Labour party together and kept the heat on John Major’s Government. We found ourselves having to vote on many an occasion, in circumstances that were bitter, controversial and politically damaging in the short term, to enable the Maastricht business to proceed, because Labour was seeking to thwart it. We are in a similar position here.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Kennedy]

I will give way in a moment, of course, because the hon. Gentleman is a fellow survivor of that era.

The votes on Maastricht were a bad experience for the Conservative party because of its rebels. I fear that its rebels on this issue will find that they are stoking up an awful lot of trouble within their own parliamentary ranks later in this Parliament. The other message of that experience was that, no matter how much one tries to feed and placate the sceptics, they come back for more. They want more and more red meat, and eventually they end up devouring you. That will be the danger if the programme motion is not passed.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am in danger of agreeing with one or two things that the right hon. Gentleman is saying. The Maastricht debates were a disaster for Parliament because of the way in which they were conducted. The solution then would have been to have a referendum, and the solution now is to have a referendum to avoid the kind of disaster that he is talking about.

[Mr Kennedy]

We will see, assuming that we have the parliamentary progress that is required, what happens on that issue. I was a European spokesman for my party at the time of Maastricht and voted in favour of a referendum. Folk of my generation voted for a referendum, while people of David Steel’s generation voted against. If we have a vote on a referendum in the course of our proceedings, which I dare say we will, it will be interesting to see what happens. It might yet become a way of breaking the logjam—who knows? I am not going to declare on the issue yet because I want to get through 10 o’clock tomorrow night first. We will take it one step at a time.

I was deeply disappointed by the opening contribution from the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on behalf of the Labour party. If that represents the Front-Bench apotheosis of Labour enthusiasm for Lords reform, then God help us, whether we are debating the matter for 10 days and nights on the Floor of this House or for a longer period if the programme motion is defeated tomorrow evening. I can only assume—I am being charitable to him—that his speech on this occasion had to be a non-committal holding operation, while Labour weighs up the advantage, sees what happens tomorrow night and decides where to go from there. He showed studied ambiguity about what the Opposition would do if they were successful in thwarting the programme motion tomorrow night, and how much time they would insist upon for debate on the Floor of the House. The repeated delphic absence of a response to those questions spoke volumes. I plead with the Labour party: do not just play the Bill for narrow party advantage, play it for the historic opportunity that it is.

European Council

Charles Kennedy Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his endorsement—wherever they come from, they are always welcome. The point about the budget approach is that 13 countries have put their signature to a letter saying they will not accept anything over 2.9%. They will, I believe, all stick to their word, and we will insist on this so that we either get 2.9%, agreed between Parliament and the Council, or we get deadlock, in which case the budget is frozen at last year’s level.

The final decisions on the proposed treaty change will be taken at the December summit. That is likely to be under the simplified revision procedure so there is not a parliamentary convention. The key point here is to be absolutely clear that this is going to be a few lines that are about putting in place what is a temporary bail-out mechanism and making it a permanent bail-out mechanism. The key point for the House to hold on to is that this does not affect the UK, except inasmuch as we want the eurozone to sort itself out.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Given today’s lunchtime praise of the Prime Minister by Miles Templeman of the Institute of Directors, and in particular his observation that the Prime Minister’s greater European sensitivity, which the IOD welcomed, must be down to the presence of Liberal Democrats in his coalition Government, may I assure the Prime Minister, speaking as one long-standing pro-European now to another, that as long as he maintains such constructive engagement he will deserve, and I am sure will receive, solid support?

[The Prime Minister]

Said without a hint of mischief. I believe the national interest right now is all about—[Interruption.] I heard that, I say to whoever said the G word. The national interest is about restricting our contributions to the EU. We are making difficult decisions here, and that is what we should be pushing for in Europe. What was encouraging about this European Council was what a strong alliance we could build with others at the same time as protecting ourselves by preventing any of this treaty change from having an effect on the UK.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Charles Kennedy Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I agree that it is essential that the Bills are properly scrutinised. As the hon. Gentleman knows, given that they are constitutional Bills, every stage of the passage of the Bills will be taken on the Floor of the House, so that every hon. Member can scrutinise these important Bills and have their say in the final shape of the legislation.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Obviously, I welcome the historic progress towards the alternative vote referendum and the fixed-term Parliaments. May I be a little more parochial and ask a question on the issue of constituency size, as for the past 27 years, under three sets of radically different constituency boundaries, I have had the privilege of representing the largest geographic constituency in this place—just below the 13,000 sq km cap that my right hon. Friend proposes to introduce? Can he confirm that the boundary commissioners will retain the flexibility in the Scottish context that they had last time round for the Westminster boundaries, when they could have opted for two Highland council area seats—that is a land mass the size of Belgium, let us remember—but in fact they opted for three?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I recognise, of course, the outstanding job that my right hon. Friend does across a constituency that is by far the largest in the country. That is why, taking the cue from his constituency, we will specify in the Bill that no new constituency can be any larger than his present constituency—just shy of 13,000 sq km. As for the basis upon which the Boundary Commissions will make their decisions, the exceptions on the face of the Bill will be very limited—for obvious reasons, the two island constituencies that I set out, and the geographical cap in size that I specified. Beyond that, the duty will be on the Boundary Commissions to deliver what we have always intended should be delivered—constituencies that are more equal in size in terms of the number of voters in each constituency.