| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is a distinguished lawyer. Clearly, the success of this scheme depends upon planning permission. Should it be refused and the application be called in, does he consider that the European Convention on Human Rights would consider it right and be happy that the Secretary of State, who has such a big interest in the deal, should arbitrate?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, so far as concerns call-in, it does not occur when planning permission is refused but before any decision is made in relation to planning permission. Before the Secretary of State made any decision about this he would have the views of an independent planning inspector. Issues in relation to the application of human rights and the planning law have been considered in the Alconbury case. As the noble Baroness knows, it was broadly concluded that because it is a democratically-based system the full rules of natural justice do not apply. So I am confident that the system would be able to accommodate this case.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to my noble and learned friend for not being here at the beginning of his Statement. Does he accept that there are many noble Lords who would like to congratulate him on the assiduous and good-humoured way in which he has reported regularly to the House during his time as Minister for the Dome? I think that he has served Parliament very well in that capacity.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those remarks.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the Minister tell us for how long the profit-sharing deal on the Dome will continue?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it will go on for the length of the agreement; that is, for as long as
Anschutz continues to operate the Dome and the Dome waterfront—the Dome waterfront being operated by Anschutz and MDL together.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, it is rather important that the Minister answers that clearly. Is he saying that in the event that the present consortium were to sell on the business to another consortium the profit-sharing deal would end?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have made clear in the Statement, there is provision for English Partnerships to participate in any redevelopment of that kind.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us under what conditions the companies concerned can withdraw from the deal?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there are a number of conditions that are not significant, save for one. The one significant condition is planning permission.
Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.54 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Woolmer of Leeds set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Harrison to two hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord make clear that the Joint Committee will have power—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is not the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House of Lords Reform
3.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn : My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The terms of the Motion have been agreed unanimously by the usual channels in both Houses. I wish to say a few words about the subsequent procedure for appointing the Joint Committee. The matter we are now engaged on is the first Motion. A second Motion will be moved in the Commons sometime after the Whitsun recess agreeing, I hope, to set up the committee and to propose Members from that House. We shall then receive a message telling us that that has been done. At that point there will be a
final Motion in this House setting out the proposed names of the Lords' Members and the powers the committee will have. It is the work of the Committee of Selection to draw up that list.Moved, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed—
(1) to consider issues relating to House of Lords reform, including the composition and powers of the second Chamber and its role and authority within the context of Parliament as a whole, having regard in particular to the impact which any proposed changes would have on the existing pre-eminence of the House of Commons, such consideration to include the implications of a House composed of more than one "category" of Member and the experience and expertise which the House of Lords in its present form brings to its function as the revising Chamber; and
(2) having regard to paragraph (1) above, to report on options for the composition and powers of the House of Lords and to define and present to both Houses options for composition, including a fully nominated and fully elected House, and intermediate options;
-
(a) any changes to the relationship between the two Houses which may be necessary to ensure the proper functioning of Parliament as a whole in the context of a reformed second Chamber, and in particular, any new procedures for resolving conflict between the two Houses; and
(b) the most appropriate and effective legal and constitutional means to give effect to any new parliamentary settlement;
(i) the report of the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform (Cm 4534);
(ii) the White Paper The House of Lords—Completing the Reform (Cm 5291), and the responses received thereto;
(iii) debates and votes in both Houses of Parliament on House of Lords reform; and
(iv) the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee report The Second Chamber: Continuing the Reform, including its consultation of the House of Commons, and any other relevant Select Committee reports.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.56 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be inappropriate but I am sure no one will mind if I say a few words about the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Government Chief Whip, who I understand has today stood down from that position. He has occupied that post for some five years. As a former Chief Whip and now Leader of the Official Opposition, perhaps I may say what a great pleasure it has been to work with him, sometimes during very difficult times.
The noble Lord took over in 1997 when there was an overwhelming majority in the House against the Labour Party. He dealt with the enormous changes
and ramifications of the 1999 Act. It is a record of which he and his family should be justly proud. I should also like to welcome his successor, but I understand that the name has yet to be announced. We very much look forward to working with him in the same way that we have worked with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, when that announcement is made.I turn to the Motion so ably, albeit briefly, moved by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. As he said, we have agreed it. I welcome it. I welcome it because it marks the end of the reform of Parliament as the property of one party and the beginning of true and lasting parliamentary reform, discussed, agreed and designed in Parliament in the public interest.
I repeat what I said the other day in response to the Statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I said that the Joint Committee must be a forum to tease out and reconcile differences of opinion on the future of this House and of Parliament as a whole. It must not be a forum in which to try to force through whatever may be the latest will of Cabinet—or any part of it.
That is why it should be a committee of authority and independence, large enough to embrace all shades of opinion in this House and in the other place. And large enough, too, to give a strong voice to Cross-Bench opinion. That is such a distinctive and valued voice in this House. I welcome the fact that this approach is shared by the Government.
Our main objective is an outcome that will strengthen Parliament and this House. As the House knows, the shadow Cabinet has set out what it believes is an effective way to achieve that. I freely recognise that there is some division on this side of the House, just as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor found that there was a division on the other side when he set out to sell the Government's proposals to his Back-Benchers in another place. There is division on the other side; there is division on this side. That is why no solution can be imposed from the Front Benches and why the Joint Committee is the best way forward.
I welcome the breadth of the terms of reference of the committee. I think that the wording could have been marginally better. It might have been more explicit to say that there will be no sensible conclusion on composition without a view of the role, powers and functions of the House.
I read the Motion as meaning that nothing is ruled in and nothing ruled out. It means that powers and composition can be examined together. Role, powers and authority must always be the begetters of composition and not the other way around. This could be the most far-reaching, non-partisan parliamentary examination of Parliament's future for a very long time. No committee charged with this task would want that to be any different.
I also hope that the committee can look at the workings of another place. It is too large and too docile in the face of the executive and has procedures poorly fitted to revise or reform the law. I suggest that to
address the problems of this place without considering the problems of another place is to call to mind the beam in one eye and the speck of dust in the other. We cannot achieve a stable parliamentary settlement with a Parliament functioning strongly in the interests of the people unless we consider genuine reform of another place, as my party has said that it will.We have debated reform of this place for more than 90 years—since 1911. Some, such as the Leader of the House in another place, Mr Robin Cook, say that the committee must complete the task in 90 days. We cannot square the great question of strengthening Parliament and securing its future in 90 days. If we could, the Government would already have come up with the answer.
We bungled reform once in 1999. We cannot repeat that mistake, otherwise the opportunity may not recur for a century or more. If the Joint Committee takes more time, I am prepared to accept that as long as it keeps its eye on the objective of a stronger Parliament. We need the maximum consensus on how that could be achieved.
No one should underestimate the scale of legislation involved here. It is a far larger undertaking than that dealt with in the 1999 Act, which was accepted by large majorities in both Houses of Parliament after the statesmanlike agreement between my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the noble learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Even so, a short Bill with a limited if distasteful aim took many days to pass.
That is why the route of a Joint Committee, long advocated by my party and by the Liberal Democrats, is wise. Let it take its time, as long as it does so for the purpose not of delay but of consensus and quality. Of course, I hope that when it reports, it will remain closest to the ideas that I have proposed, but we will consider whatever it produces constructively and respond as swiftly and as constructively as we can, provided that the end result is a stronger, more authoritative and even more effective House of Lords.
That is what I have worked for ever since I entered this place; it is what I believe in with deep conviction; and it is what I hope for from the Joint Committee that we are creating today.
4 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, I add a few words of regret and deep respect for the former Government Chief Whip, whom all of us in the House greatly like and who behaved with astonishing patience and understanding. He has friends in all parties and conducted himself throughout with an extraordinary degree of dedication to making this House the best place that he could possibly help to make it. He won great respect and friendship from all sides of the House for his modesty, generosity of spirit and conscientiousness.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page