Red Benches No 1: The House of Lords this week

Conservatives on the Rwanda Bill, Lord Hain on Northern Ireland and my question to Lord Cameron on Gaza

Welcome to this first edition of Red Benches. A lot of interesting, and important, things are said in the House of Lords. Until recently, the Westminster political bubble hardly noticed. That’s changing, slowly, partly because the House of Commons is so weak, ineffective and dysfunctional that lots of issues have to be dealt with in the Lords. But also because, as was very evident this week, there’s far more independence of mind, and breadth of politics (particularly but not only) in the Conservative Party. Truth is said to power in a way that does not happen in the Commons. And the first section today, on the Rwanda Bill, sums that up very well.

I’m going to aim to put an edition out every Friday when the House is sitting. (Although it might sometimes slide to the weekend.) The top section will feature what others have done and said, the second section will be a roundup of my week on the benches. If you want it handily landing in your inbox, you know what to do….

Meanwhile, on with this week’s show.

A. Rwanda Bill Committee stage ¹

Featuring more Conservatives to agree with than you might imagine is possible.

Case Study 1: Viscount Hailsham (who you might better know as Douglas Hogg)

On the Bill’s disapplying of Human Rights Act. And whole of Tory approach of dog-whistle politics. My comment: Why is Reform Party getting votes? Tories are singing their song.

Case Study 2: Lord (Ken) Clarke

“Completely flabbergasted by the constitutional implications"

Case Study 3: Lord Deben (formerly John Gummer), until recently chair of the Climate Change Committee

Speaking on the shipping of victims of modern slavery to Rwanda. (On which the minister got himself into a right tangle in response)

You can read Hansard Day 1 and Day 2 to get the complete picture. The final day is on Monday, which you can watch live from somewhere around mid-afternoon here. Probably until into the following morning.

B. Northern Ireland inquests

Issues in Northern Ireland are far too often left to a small number of peers (slanted heavily by the number of Unionist Party peers), but important issues are raised as nowhere else, as by Labour’s Lord Hain (former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland) who used a Windsor Framework debate to raise a justice issue: “I ask, in relation to legacy inquests under way in Northern Ireland, is the Minister not extremely perturbed—indeed, embarrassed—by the fact that state bodies appear to be openly running down the clock to 1 May, when the due process that we set such store by in the United Kingdom will no longer apply in Northern Ireland thanks to the shameful legacy Act? In one case, a Ministry of Defence official told an inquest, “We have only a single officer supporting Northern Ireland inquests.” In another, the legal representative of the PSNI admitted that further resources could be deployed and more progress made, but said, in terms, “What’s the point?” Is this not a disgraceful way to treat victims of the Troubles, who have suffered so much already?”

C. Local government finance

I was trying, but failed, to get in on an Oral Question put by Labour’s lovely Lord Dubs (a Kindertransport survivor and champion of refugees) on the desperate financial staits of local government. Again we had the government being challenged from their own benches - Lord Young of Cookham - three times a Cabinet minister - said: “many well-run upper-tier authorities—controlled by all parties—are now running out of road”. So much of the misery, of the destruction of local communities - closing of libraries, slashing of youth services, collapse of social care - goes back to the impact of more than a decade of austerity in local government funding.

D. Further restrictions on protest

Statements made by the government in the Commons are usually subject to questioning in the Lords, as was the case of the announcement of MORE planned restrictions on protest. “My noble friend Baroness Jones of Moulescomb” - in more normal language my fellow Green peer Jenny Jones - challenged the minister in her inimitable style: “All the officers I have spoken to—admittedly a small sample—have said that they do not need these powers and that they have enough powers. What these extra powers do is take away the discretion that they have in dealing with people, which is something they value because they do not want to be tied up in having to go off to the police station with loads of arrested people. Most of these measures are totally unnecessary.”

E. Good News

A new Plaid Cymru peer, Carmen Smith, 27, is joining the House. Definitely looking forward to that; we often work with the existing Plaid Cymru peer Lord Wigley, who is a lovely man! She’s one of 13 new peers; you can read about the others here.

Part 2: My week in the Lords

A busy one, even though the House did not sit on Thursday. (That counts as our half-term break.)

Monday: Day 1 of the Rwanda Bill

I reflected on how multiple uses of the word “silly” were not in any way meant to downplay the seriousness of what is being done in this Bill, but one definition of the word, referring to “lack of judgement” made it particularly apt. I also (scroll down the link) challenged ministerial claims about gender equality in Rwanda. Yes progress has been made in political representation, but still huge issues about economic inequality and violence against women and girls. This in a country where we are sending - something I find many people still do not understand - vulnerable refugees to live their lives. (Not just for the period of their claims being processed.)

Tuesday

(a) My oral question on excessive production of petrochemicals and hence plastics

“A matter for industry to lead on”, says Lord Benyon. Sure, right.

(I wrote on Comment Central about the issue.

)

(b) My question to the Foreign Secretary about conditions for children in Gaza

Wednesday

Day 2 of the Rwanda Bill committee - “Post-truth politics is one thing, but what we confront with the Rwanda Bill is post-truth law.”

---

So what did you think of this first edition of Red Benches. Please let me know!

Want the next one in your inbox?

Or want to let a friend know about it?

1. Committee stage comes after the Second Reading (general discussion). Amendments are tabled but very rarely put to the vote. Ideally, and often in practice, this is the place to explore different ways of improving government bills, with the next stage - report - being where the amendments with the most support (often improved after the debate at committee)