The House met for the first time at 10.00am, to consider the 2nd Reading of David Steel's private members bill on the House of Lords.
There were 43 speeches, and a small number of interventions. Lord Steel kicked off the debate with an amusing speech. There was a wide range of views expressed - from some illustrious contributors, who included Lord Richard; Baroness Boothroyd; Lord Norton and the debate was responded to by the Minister for Justice, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
The House adjourned at 2.25pm.
Friday 30 November 2007
Thursday 29 November 2007
The Lord Speaker announced the death of Lord Allen of Abbeydale - who had served as a senior civil servant before he became a peer in 1976.
Questions covered the UK's international competitiveness; Obesity; HIV/AIDS and the policy of the EU towards Kosovo. Three pieces of delegated legislation were agreed to. There were two debates initiated by Labour Peers - one on the Government's record on the management and prosecution of Sexual Offences and the other on the growth of passenger and freight traffic on Britain's railways. A statement on Remploy, initially made in the House of Commons by Peter Hain, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, was repeated between the two debates.
Two private bills were given their third reading. There was a question for short debate on the Statistics Board. The House adjourned at 7.05pm
Questions covered the UK's international competitiveness; Obesity; HIV/AIDS and the policy of the EU towards Kosovo. Three pieces of delegated legislation were agreed to. There were two debates initiated by Labour Peers - one on the Government's record on the management and prosecution of Sexual Offences and the other on the growth of passenger and freight traffic on Britain's railways. A statement on Remploy, initially made in the House of Commons by Peter Hain, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, was repeated between the two debates.
Two private bills were given their third reading. There was a question for short debate on the Statistics Board. The House adjourned at 7.05pm
Wednesday 28 November 2007
Questions dealt with Burma; the closure of British Embassies in Latin America; the impact on arts funding of the spending overrun on the Olympic Games and the environmental impact of the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport. Motions relating to changes in the Standing Orders were agreed to. A statement was made by Lord Malloch-Brown on the Middle East Peace process.
A 2nd Reading was given to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill. This began at 4.15pm and concluded at 7.23pm.
Three pieces of delegated legislation were agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.57pm
A 2nd Reading was given to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill. This began at 4.15pm and concluded at 7.23pm.
Three pieces of delegated legislation were agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.57pm
Tuesday 27 November 2007
Monday 26 November 2007
After the announcement of the death of a member, the great Law Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, the House took questions on the Metropolitan Police Commissioner; the threat of a Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq in response to PKK attacks; whether there are plans for further high-speed railway lines within the United Kingdom; and the the eradication of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan.
A number of motions relating to secondary legislation were agreed to. The 5th Report from the Select Committee on Procedure was agreed to. This means that Friday sittings will start at 10am with a target finishing time of 3pm and give greater flexibility to the length of Questions for Short Debate.
One of the most interesting proposals, procedurally, is to reword the amendment often used to (attempt to) kill a bill at 2nd Reading. Currently the practice is to move an amendment to the motion “that this bill be now read a second time”, by leaving out “now” and at end insert “this day six months”
Lord Brabazon of Tara told their Lordships:-
"What the Procedure Committee proposes will not in any way limit the existing rights of Members to oppose Bills on Second Reading in the ways that I have just outlined. All we are doing is recommending that the wording be changed for the first of these procedures so that, instead of a dilatory amendment, which appears to postpone Second Reading for six months, we have a clear decision that this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading.
It may interest noble Lords to know that the form of words “this day six months” became fixed in convention in the first half of the 19th century at the same time as the convention was established that parliamentary Sessions should also last six months; from February to August. The point of the amendment was therefore not to invite the Government to bring back the Bill in six months, but to ensure that the Government could not bring it back until after Parliament had been safely prorogued.
The first example of the six months amendment being used that we can find dates back to 9 April 1832, when an attempt to kill the Great Reform Bill on Second Reading was defeated. Clearly, the opponents of that Bill were not asking the Duke of Wellington to come back with a revised proposal in six months: they wanted to stop reform dead in its tracks.
Let us be clear about the significance of “this day six months”. If such an amendment is passed on Second Reading it means and has always meant that the Bill is dead, as when the Opposition successfully killed the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill in March this year.
Unfortunately, the natural conclusion reached by those outside the House, who are less familiar with our proceedings, is that the six months amendment means that the Bill can be brought back six months later. That was very evident at the time of the Second Reading of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in 2006, when the Information Office and the Public Bill Office were bombarded with calls from members of the public who were confused over the significance of what had just happened."
Lord Denham tried to kill the proposal - by moving such an amendment!!!! - but it was withdrawn.
The House then gave the Children and Young Persons Bill a Second Reading. That debate was completed by 7.30. A Question for Short Debate on Restorative Justice followed and the House adjourned at 8.21pm.
A number of motions relating to secondary legislation were agreed to. The 5th Report from the Select Committee on Procedure was agreed to. This means that Friday sittings will start at 10am with a target finishing time of 3pm and give greater flexibility to the length of Questions for Short Debate.
One of the most interesting proposals, procedurally, is to reword the amendment often used to (attempt to) kill a bill at 2nd Reading. Currently the practice is to move an amendment to the motion “that this bill be now read a second time”, by leaving out “now” and at end insert “this day six months”
Lord Brabazon of Tara told their Lordships:-
"What the Procedure Committee proposes will not in any way limit the existing rights of Members to oppose Bills on Second Reading in the ways that I have just outlined. All we are doing is recommending that the wording be changed for the first of these procedures so that, instead of a dilatory amendment, which appears to postpone Second Reading for six months, we have a clear decision that this House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading.
It may interest noble Lords to know that the form of words “this day six months” became fixed in convention in the first half of the 19th century at the same time as the convention was established that parliamentary Sessions should also last six months; from February to August. The point of the amendment was therefore not to invite the Government to bring back the Bill in six months, but to ensure that the Government could not bring it back until after Parliament had been safely prorogued.
The first example of the six months amendment being used that we can find dates back to 9 April 1832, when an attempt to kill the Great Reform Bill on Second Reading was defeated. Clearly, the opponents of that Bill were not asking the Duke of Wellington to come back with a revised proposal in six months: they wanted to stop reform dead in its tracks.
Let us be clear about the significance of “this day six months”. If such an amendment is passed on Second Reading it means and has always meant that the Bill is dead, as when the Opposition successfully killed the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill in March this year.
Unfortunately, the natural conclusion reached by those outside the House, who are less familiar with our proceedings, is that the six months amendment means that the Bill can be brought back six months later. That was very evident at the time of the Second Reading of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in 2006, when the Information Office and the Public Bill Office were bombarded with calls from members of the public who were confused over the significance of what had just happened."
Lord Denham tried to kill the proposal - by moving such an amendment!!!! - but it was withdrawn.
The House then gave the Children and Young Persons Bill a Second Reading. That debate was completed by 7.30. A Question for Short Debate on Restorative Justice followed and the House adjourned at 8.21pm.
Thursday 22 November 2007
Proceedings began with a message from the Queen, signed by her own hand, saying “I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament”.
The first question concerned the EU Reform Treaty and its relationship to the Constitutional Treaty of 2004. Other questions covered plans for an American missile defence system; Mobile phone charges; and the effects of global climate change on Bangladesh.
A private members bill was introduced and given its first reading which would make provision for the labelling of alcoholic beverages; and for connected purposes.
The main business of the day was a debate on the armed services, which saw a concerted attack on the Government by former military chiefs - Admiral Lord Boyce; Lord Craig of Radley; Field Marshal Lord Bramall; General Lord Guthrie; and Field Marshal Lord Inge- all former Chiefs of the Defence Staff all spoke. Baroness Taylor responded on behalf of the Government and the debate was wound up by Baroness Park of Monmouth who had initiated the debate.
Two of pieces of delegated legislation were considered, under the form of motions to annul, though both motions were withdrawn, an opportunity having been had to discuss them. Other motions to annul were not moved. The House adjourned at 5.25pm.
The first question concerned the EU Reform Treaty and its relationship to the Constitutional Treaty of 2004. Other questions covered plans for an American missile defence system; Mobile phone charges; and the effects of global climate change on Bangladesh.
A private members bill was introduced and given its first reading which would make provision for the labelling of alcoholic beverages; and for connected purposes.
The main business of the day was a debate on the armed services, which saw a concerted attack on the Government by former military chiefs - Admiral Lord Boyce; Lord Craig of Radley; Field Marshal Lord Bramall; General Lord Guthrie; and Field Marshal Lord Inge- all former Chiefs of the Defence Staff all spoke. Baroness Taylor responded on behalf of the Government and the debate was wound up by Baroness Park of Monmouth who had initiated the debate.
Two of pieces of delegated legislation were considered, under the form of motions to annul, though both motions were withdrawn, an opportunity having been had to discuss them. Other motions to annul were not moved. The House adjourned at 5.25pm.
Wednesday 21 November 2007
The first question asked was about the regulation of financial institutions - a very topical issue. Other questions dealt with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; Self-extinguishing fire safety cigarettes and the e-borders plans and the Irish border. Three further committee membership motions were agreed to.
Lord Darzi made a short statement about the recovery of Lord Brennan - and stressed how important it is to have defibrillators in public places, noting that "It was the defibrillator and its immediate availability that saved his life" The House was informed that he is likely to leave hospital on Friday.
The Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill was resumed at 3.35pm and successfully concluded at 5.52. The Second Reading of the Dormant Bank & Building Society Accounts Bill followed. This was completed at 7.51. There was a short debate on the motion that "this House takes note of the report of the Communications Committee on The Chairmanship of the BBC (First Report, Session 2006-07, HL Paper 171)"
The House adjourned at 9.18pm.
Lord Darzi made a short statement about the recovery of Lord Brennan - and stressed how important it is to have defibrillators in public places, noting that "It was the defibrillator and its immediate availability that saved his life" The House was informed that he is likely to leave hospital on Friday.
The Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill was resumed at 3.35pm and successfully concluded at 5.52. The Second Reading of the Dormant Bank & Building Society Accounts Bill followed. This was completed at 7.51. There was a short debate on the motion that "this House takes note of the report of the Communications Committee on The Chairmanship of the BBC (First Report, Session 2006-07, HL Paper 171)"
The House adjourned at 9.18pm.
Tuesday 20 November 2007
Questions covered the effectiveness of existing legislation to help disabled people; whether the Government plans to review the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility to 10 years of age; the ability of parliament to amend the new EU Reform Treaty; and dyslexia.
Four further motions relating to the membership of committees were agreed to. Lord Grocott then advised members of the target length of speeches necessary to finish the days business by 10pm. He also took the opportunity to update members on Lord Brennan's recovery.
The major business of the day was the Second Reading of the Local Transport Bill. It was interrupted after Lord Rosser's speech for a statement made in the House of Commons to be repeated concerning the loss of data files by HM Revenue and Customs. The bill completed its 2nd Reading and was committee to a Grand Committee at 7.06pm
The final business was a motion to take note of the Pre-Budget Report 2007. The House adjourned at 8.32pm.
Four further motions relating to the membership of committees were agreed to. Lord Grocott then advised members of the target length of speeches necessary to finish the days business by 10pm. He also took the opportunity to update members on Lord Brennan's recovery.
The major business of the day was the Second Reading of the Local Transport Bill. It was interrupted after Lord Rosser's speech for a statement made in the House of Commons to be repeated concerning the loss of data files by HM Revenue and Customs. The bill completed its 2nd Reading and was committee to a Grand Committee at 7.06pm
The final business was a motion to take note of the Pre-Budget Report 2007. The House adjourned at 8.32pm.
Monday 19 November 2007
Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked a question related to the EU - which prompted two responses. Lord Tomlinson wondered whether "the reason why we have such repetitive returning to the same question by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is that he clearly has an incapacity to understand complicated answers such as that given to him by my noble friend?". Lord Davies of Oldham's response was "I am grateful to my noble friend, but I do not think that he pays due regard, as I do, to the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who obliges us from time to time to identify accurately the very real benefits of European Union membership." Lord Pearson is a UKIP Peer.
Other questions dealt with modern languages in schools; warships and the number of regulatory reform orders. The answer to how many of the latter had been made was none - they have been replaced by legislative reform orders!
A further 4 committee membership motions were agreed to, before the debate on the second reading of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill began at 3.08pm. The second reading was moved by Lord Darzi - who was to play a key role at the end of proceedings. The debate had been expected to last until 10pm or later - but within a minute of sitting down after delivering his speech, Lord Brennan collapsed and Lord Darzi administered heart massage while other members and officials came to his aid. The sitting was immediately adjourned and an hour later Lord Grocott announced that the House would adjourn for the day and the debate resumed on Wednesday. The news from St Thomas' Hospital was encouraging and Lord Brennan was reported to be much better.
Other questions dealt with modern languages in schools; warships and the number of regulatory reform orders. The answer to how many of the latter had been made was none - they have been replaced by legislative reform orders!
A further 4 committee membership motions were agreed to, before the debate on the second reading of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill began at 3.08pm. The second reading was moved by Lord Darzi - who was to play a key role at the end of proceedings. The debate had been expected to last until 10pm or later - but within a minute of sitting down after delivering his speech, Lord Brennan collapsed and Lord Darzi administered heart massage while other members and officials came to his aid. The sitting was immediately adjourned and an hour later Lord Grocott announced that the House would adjourn for the day and the debate resumed on Wednesday. The news from St Thomas' Hospital was encouraging and Lord Brennan was reported to be much better.
Thursday 15 November 2007
Questions covered - (1) meeting the needs of children born in August, who, according to recent research perform less well than those born earlier in the school year (2) Victorian terrace houses and housing renewal programmes (3) the impact of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on obesity and (4) road access to Gaza. A further 3 committee membership motions were agreed to. Seven draft regulations and orders were referred to a Grand Committee.
At 11.40 the house began two debates ('to call attention to...and to move for papers') - the first on Conventional weapons and the second on 'Liberal Intervention'. A Question for Short Debate on work opportunities for prisoners was asked by Lord Dubs and answered by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
The House adjourned at 3.53 - and the House was due to meet next on Monday 19th November at 2.30pm.
At 11.40 the house began two debates ('to call attention to...and to move for papers') - the first on Conventional weapons and the second on 'Liberal Intervention'. A Question for Short Debate on work opportunities for prisoners was asked by Lord Dubs and answered by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
The House adjourned at 3.53 - and the House was due to meet next on Monday 19th November at 2.30pm.
Final Day of Queen's Speech Debate
Questions covered the appointment of the new chairman of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority - Lord Jones told the House the name of the successful candidate should be announced in January; compensation to farmers as a result of the Pirbright outbreak of Foot & Mouth; the cost of conflict in Africa; and a review of the effectiveness of Ritalin as a drug for Attention Deficit Disorder. Two Government bills were introduced and given their first Reading - the Children and Young Persons Bill and the Climate Change Bill.
Further appointments of committees were made - but without any attempt to oppose. A statement on National Security made in the Commons by the Prime Minister was repeated by Baroness Ashton and questions followed.
The debate on the Address resumed at 4.35pm and Business; Energy; Work and Pensions and Economic Affairs. The motion to present a humble address to the Queen was approved without dissension and the House adjourned at 9.31pm
Further appointments of committees were made - but without any attempt to oppose. A statement on National Security made in the Commons by the Prime Minister was repeated by Baroness Ashton and questions followed.
The debate on the Address resumed at 4.35pm and Business; Energy; Work and Pensions and Economic Affairs. The motion to present a humble address to the Queen was approved without dissension and the House adjourned at 9.31pm
Wednesday 14 November 2007
5th Day of Queen's Speech Debate
Lord Wallace of Tankerness was introduced. Baroness Taylor of Bolton answered a question on insurance premiums for members of the armed forces. West Papua, a part of malaysia was the subject of a question answere by Lord Malloch Brown. A question about British Government 'goldplating' EU directives was asked by Lord Higgins and answered by Lord Malloch Brown. The final question was about the retention of records of old criminal convictions. Lord West of spithead answered this one.
There were a number of motions relating to the membership of committees. As is usual all but one of these were agreed to immediately. However the motion to appoint members of the European Union Committee faced an amendment from Lord Pearson of Rannoch to reconsider. A twenty minute debate followed at which many of the best known europhobes in the House spoke. Lord Richard, himself a former European Commissioner, was outraged at Lord Pearson's remarks, saying
"My Lords, for 17 years now I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on Europe. He does not say things that are novel. He occasionally says things that are interesting. He very often says things that are quite breathtaking. I am bound to say that what he has done today seems to be firmly in the last category; indeed, it is so breathtaking that it is difficult to produce moderate language with which to oppose it.
The noble Lord seems to assume that the Committee of Selection has deliberately—that is the implication—put on this committee people whose general views are Europhiliac rather than Europhobic. That is a terrible thing to say. The Committee of Selection and its personalities were approved by this House and it includes distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House. The idea that they somehow would connive in order to produce a committee on the European Union that was somehow in the interests of the government side rather than the opposition side of the House—if that is the position of the Opposition—is incredible. I say with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that he should withdraw his amendment and perhaps apologise to the House for having slighted it."
The debate on the Address resumed - the subjects being housing, planning, transport, agriculture and climate change. Baroness Andrew introduced the debate and Lord Rooker replied to the speeches made during the course of the afternoon and evening. The debate was interupted for Lord West to repeat a statement made in the Commons on the Security Industry Authority. A private bill, the 'London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill' was brought from the Commons.
The House adjourned at 9.55pm
There were a number of motions relating to the membership of committees. As is usual all but one of these were agreed to immediately. However the motion to appoint members of the European Union Committee faced an amendment from Lord Pearson of Rannoch to reconsider. A twenty minute debate followed at which many of the best known europhobes in the House spoke. Lord Richard, himself a former European Commissioner, was outraged at Lord Pearson's remarks, saying
"My Lords, for 17 years now I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on Europe. He does not say things that are novel. He occasionally says things that are interesting. He very often says things that are quite breathtaking. I am bound to say that what he has done today seems to be firmly in the last category; indeed, it is so breathtaking that it is difficult to produce moderate language with which to oppose it.
The noble Lord seems to assume that the Committee of Selection has deliberately—that is the implication—put on this committee people whose general views are Europhiliac rather than Europhobic. That is a terrible thing to say. The Committee of Selection and its personalities were approved by this House and it includes distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House. The idea that they somehow would connive in order to produce a committee on the European Union that was somehow in the interests of the government side rather than the opposition side of the House—if that is the position of the Opposition—is incredible. I say with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that he should withdraw his amendment and perhaps apologise to the House for having slighted it."
The debate on the Address resumed - the subjects being housing, planning, transport, agriculture and climate change. Baroness Andrew introduced the debate and Lord Rooker replied to the speeches made during the course of the afternoon and evening. The debate was interupted for Lord West to repeat a statement made in the Commons on the Security Industry Authority. A private bill, the 'London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill' was brought from the Commons.
The House adjourned at 9.55pm
Tuesday 13 November 2007
Fourth Day of Debate on the Queen's Speech.
Lord West answered a question on the resettlement of Iraqi citizens who have worked for the UK in Iraq; Lord Rooker replied to Lord Dubs' question about a peace wall in the the playground of an integrated primary school in Belfast;Baroness Royall answered the final two questions on Human Rights in Zimbabwe and Tony Blair's work as Middle East Special Representative.
The subjects of the debate on the Address were home affairs, justice and constitutional affairs. Lord West began the debate which concluded at 9.33pm by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Baroness Neville-Jones made her debut on the Opposition front bench.
The subjects of the debate on the Address were home affairs, justice and constitutional affairs. Lord West began the debate which concluded at 9.33pm by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Baroness Neville-Jones made her debut on the Opposition front bench.
Friday 9 November 2007
Queen's Speech Debate Continued
The House met at 11.00, the first matter of business being the introduction of the The Lord Bishop of Carlisle—(Geoffrey Graham). More bills were given their first Reading - Lord Darzi introduced the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL] and Lord Bach was welcomed back as a whip with a loud 'hear,hear' as he introduced the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].
Debate resumed on the humble address - the subjects being Health, Social Affairs and Education. Lord Darzi began the debate - There were a number of speeches from Peers with considerable experience in the relevant fields. Lord Soley made an important point when he said
-"Recently I have seen headlines, not just from the Leader of the Opposition but across the board, about how we live in a “broken society”. We really do not, and the evidence for that is very strong. I understand how, if you read the newspapers every day, particularly about what young people are doing, or indeed watch too many episodes of “EastEnders”, you might come to the conclusion that the British public generally, not just young people, could be put into two boxes: one marked “Psychopathic killers” and the other “Depressive and addictive personalities”. Actually, society is much better than that. The polling that was reported on the BBC recently, showing that about 70 per cent of people regard their family life as being high quality, is much closer to the truth. It is time that we started paying attention to the successes in this area."
On Education and training Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe pointed out "Raising the participation age to 18 is not the full story, however. From 2011, there will be a demographic downturn, whereby the number of 18 year-olds will decrease quite substantially. There is even more to be done in training and retraining the existing workforce, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, in his report on skills. It is salutary to note that 70 per cent of the 2020 workforce is already working; much of the upskilling and reskilling will take place in part-time or bite-sized courses, from HND or foundation degrees to first, second or even third-degree level."
Lord Adonis wound up for the Government. Some private bills were dealt with and the House adjourned at 5.34pm.
Debate resumed on the humble address - the subjects being Health, Social Affairs and Education. Lord Darzi began the debate - There were a number of speeches from Peers with considerable experience in the relevant fields. Lord Soley made an important point when he said
-"Recently I have seen headlines, not just from the Leader of the Opposition but across the board, about how we live in a “broken society”. We really do not, and the evidence for that is very strong. I understand how, if you read the newspapers every day, particularly about what young people are doing, or indeed watch too many episodes of “EastEnders”, you might come to the conclusion that the British public generally, not just young people, could be put into two boxes: one marked “Psychopathic killers” and the other “Depressive and addictive personalities”. Actually, society is much better than that. The polling that was reported on the BBC recently, showing that about 70 per cent of people regard their family life as being high quality, is much closer to the truth. It is time that we started paying attention to the successes in this area."
On Education and training Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe pointed out "Raising the participation age to 18 is not the full story, however. From 2011, there will be a demographic downturn, whereby the number of 18 year-olds will decrease quite substantially. There is even more to be done in training and retraining the existing workforce, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, in his report on skills. It is salutary to note that 70 per cent of the 2020 workforce is already working; much of the upskilling and reskilling will take place in part-time or bite-sized courses, from HND or foundation degrees to first, second or even third-degree level."
Lord Adonis wound up for the Government. Some private bills were dealt with and the House adjourned at 5.34pm.
Thursday 8 November 2007
Foreign Affairs, Europe....
The House met at its normal Wednesday time of 3pm. Five Bills were introduced and given their first Reading
Local Transport Bill [HL]
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]
House of Lords Bill [HL]
Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill [HL]
Powers of Entry etc. Bill [HL]
A motion was then agreed to appointing the Committee of Selection. The debate on the Address was resumed at 3.12pm and continued until the House adjourned at 10.53pm. The subject matters for the day were Foreign and European Affairs, International Development and Defence. Baroness Taylor, appointed only a few hours before at the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence, opened the debate. Her first task was to pay tribute to her predeccesor Lord Drayson, who has taken leave of absence in order to pursue his interest in motor racing. Much of the debate centered around the EU Reform Treaty; Israel-Palestine; Energy Security and Climate Change. Afghanistan; Iraq; Darfur and defence procurement were also discussed. The topics were so wide that many other matters were raised too.
Baroness Ramsey of Cartvale made a thoughtful speech on Israel and Palestine and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard gave a reasoned speech about the EU Reform Treaty. Lord Jopling argued for greater co-operation between NATO and the EU. Lord Grenfell announced that the Lord's EU "Select Committee decided that the best service it could render the House was to conduct a rigorous and detailed impact assessment, based on the treaty text agreed at the 18 October informal summit, to be carried out through our policy-based sub-committees, of the effect of the treaty changes in their final form on the United Kingdom and on the EU as a whole. The Select Committee will assess the institutional changes with the exception of the creation of the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy which will be scrutinised by our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy Sub-Committee. We plan to publish the consolidated assessment in advance of any ratification Bill coming before your Lordships' House, in the event that the treaty is signed at the 13 December European Council. Our sole objective is to produce a report that can prove useful to all participants in the debate.
We shall be looking principally at the treaty itself, with the UK's opt-ins and opt-outs treated separately. With regard to the latter, we shall explain where opt-outs are possible, and what would be the implications of not opting in. We will, in particular, seek to probe in detail the effectiveness of the Government's red lines, including, of course, the provision that national security remains a matter for member states. Opt-ins in freedom, security and justice matters will be subjected to close scrutiny, as will be the United Kingdom’s position regarding the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. We shall also look closely at any provision made by the Government to implement parliamentary involvement in passerelle provisions which enable qualified majority voting to be extended without treaty amendment, a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, has already expressed interest.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is precisely what our Select Committee and its sub-committees should be doing. Work is already under way, and on Thursday last we published a preliminary report setting out our work programme on the treaty and publishing some evidence already taken from our permanent representative to the EU, as well as from the head of the Commission's legal service, from the office of the EU Commission vice-president in charge of relations with national parliaments, and from one of the three MEPs who represented the European Parliament in the intergovernmental conference on the treaty.
That is just the beginning. The Select Committee and its sub-committees are now fully engaged in carrying forward this very important inquiry. We are asking interested parties within and widely outside Parliament to put their views directly to our sub-committees and to the Select Committee. On Tuesday of last week, and leading the pack, our Law and Institutions Sub-Committee—chaired, as noble Lords know, by one of our Law Lords—which will bear a heavy burden in this inquiry, published its call for evidence, seeking a broad spectrum of views on the impact of the reform treaty in the areas of freedom, security and justice."
Apart from a diversion - Baroness Walmsley spoke about children, schools and family - she won't be able to attend that part of the debate scheduled for Thursday 8th - the debate continued until Lord Malloch-Brown wound up the debate.
Local Transport Bill [HL]
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]
House of Lords Bill [HL]
Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill [HL]
Powers of Entry etc. Bill [HL]
A motion was then agreed to appointing the Committee of Selection. The debate on the Address was resumed at 3.12pm and continued until the House adjourned at 10.53pm. The subject matters for the day were Foreign and European Affairs, International Development and Defence. Baroness Taylor, appointed only a few hours before at the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence, opened the debate. Her first task was to pay tribute to her predeccesor Lord Drayson, who has taken leave of absence in order to pursue his interest in motor racing. Much of the debate centered around the EU Reform Treaty; Israel-Palestine; Energy Security and Climate Change. Afghanistan; Iraq; Darfur and defence procurement were also discussed. The topics were so wide that many other matters were raised too.
Baroness Ramsey of Cartvale made a thoughtful speech on Israel and Palestine and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard gave a reasoned speech about the EU Reform Treaty. Lord Jopling argued for greater co-operation between NATO and the EU. Lord Grenfell announced that the Lord's EU "Select Committee decided that the best service it could render the House was to conduct a rigorous and detailed impact assessment, based on the treaty text agreed at the 18 October informal summit, to be carried out through our policy-based sub-committees, of the effect of the treaty changes in their final form on the United Kingdom and on the EU as a whole. The Select Committee will assess the institutional changes with the exception of the creation of the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy which will be scrutinised by our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy Sub-Committee. We plan to publish the consolidated assessment in advance of any ratification Bill coming before your Lordships' House, in the event that the treaty is signed at the 13 December European Council. Our sole objective is to produce a report that can prove useful to all participants in the debate.
We shall be looking principally at the treaty itself, with the UK's opt-ins and opt-outs treated separately. With regard to the latter, we shall explain where opt-outs are possible, and what would be the implications of not opting in. We will, in particular, seek to probe in detail the effectiveness of the Government's red lines, including, of course, the provision that national security remains a matter for member states. Opt-ins in freedom, security and justice matters will be subjected to close scrutiny, as will be the United Kingdom’s position regarding the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. We shall also look closely at any provision made by the Government to implement parliamentary involvement in passerelle provisions which enable qualified majority voting to be extended without treaty amendment, a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, has already expressed interest.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is precisely what our Select Committee and its sub-committees should be doing. Work is already under way, and on Thursday last we published a preliminary report setting out our work programme on the treaty and publishing some evidence already taken from our permanent representative to the EU, as well as from the head of the Commission's legal service, from the office of the EU Commission vice-president in charge of relations with national parliaments, and from one of the three MEPs who represented the European Parliament in the intergovernmental conference on the treaty.
That is just the beginning. The Select Committee and its sub-committees are now fully engaged in carrying forward this very important inquiry. We are asking interested parties within and widely outside Parliament to put their views directly to our sub-committees and to the Select Committee. On Tuesday of last week, and leading the pack, our Law and Institutions Sub-Committee—chaired, as noble Lords know, by one of our Law Lords—which will bear a heavy burden in this inquiry, published its call for evidence, seeking a broad spectrum of views on the impact of the reform treaty in the areas of freedom, security and justice."
Apart from a diversion - Baroness Walmsley spoke about children, schools and family - she won't be able to attend that part of the debate scheduled for Thursday 8th - the debate continued until Lord Malloch-Brown wound up the debate.
Tuesday 6 November 2007
Queen's Speech
This morning the Queen came to the Palace of Westminster to open the new session. Her speech can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7080881.stm. Once this had been delivered the House adjourned until 3.30pm.
The first business this afternoon was the introduction of the new Clerk of the Parliaments, Michael Pownall. Then, as tradition dictates - the Select Vestries Bill was given its first Reading. The Lord Speaker advised the House of the Queen's Speech. A motion for a humble address was moved by Baroness Corston and seconded by Lord Hart of Chilton. These speeches from Labour backbenchers were entertaining, and in Lord Hart's case - a very amusing and impressive maiden speech.
Lord Strathclyde moved the adjournment of the House for the day - and both he (Conservative) and Lord McNally (Liberal Democrat) gave their parties response to the Queen's speech. Baroness Ashton replied and gave the government's position on the legislative programme that had been announced.
The appointments of the Chairman [Lord Brabazon of Tara] and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees were moved before the House adjourned at 4.40pm.
The first business this afternoon was the introduction of the new Clerk of the Parliaments, Michael Pownall. Then, as tradition dictates - the Select Vestries Bill was given its first Reading. The Lord Speaker advised the House of the Queen's Speech. A motion for a humble address was moved by Baroness Corston and seconded by Lord Hart of Chilton. These speeches from Labour backbenchers were entertaining, and in Lord Hart's case - a very amusing and impressive maiden speech.
Lord Strathclyde moved the adjournment of the House for the day - and both he (Conservative) and Lord McNally (Liberal Democrat) gave their parties response to the Queen's speech. Baroness Ashton replied and gave the government's position on the legislative programme that had been announced.
The appointments of the Chairman [Lord Brabazon of Tara] and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees were moved before the House adjourned at 4.40pm.
Welcome to House of Lords Review
Welcome to this new blog which will focus on activities within the House of Lords. Each day's business will be summarised (though there may be a few days delay on certain occasions). Please feel free to post your comments.
The first post will follow the State Opening of Parliament on November 6th - the first day of the 2007/08 session
The first post will follow the State Opening of Parliament on November 6th - the first day of the 2007/08 session
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
