A very interesting question indeed...

In preparing the Liberal Democrat Voice preview of the week ahead in the Lords, I had noticed an intriguing question from one of the new Labour Peers, Lord Sahota, on the question of tax return processing. Intriguing, because it isn't that often that the Lords addresses the management and effectiveness of HM Revenue & Customs. And, given that I didn't even know if there was a Treasury Minister in the Lords, I was also curious to see who would have to get up and defend us on behalf of the Government.

The answers turned out to be:

• criticism of HMRC's handling of telephone calls

• Baroness Vere of Norbiton

In fairness, the decision to direct as many callers as possible to HMRC's digital offering has been the subject of much criticism, especially at what is the busiest time of year for Self Assessment tax return completion. That said, we do allow a relatively generous amount of time for returns to be completed and submitted (nearly ten months compared to, for example, three and a half months in the United States) and, whilst human nature tends to leave unpleasant tasks to the last minute, most people have the information needed to complete their returns by mid-summer. And yes, I've been guilty of leaving it until late in the past too.

There was the usual cheap jibe at civil servants working at home (yes, Patrick McLoughlin, I did notice...), but I have to say that my personal experience was of being flat out on calls and hanging on to clear the backlog after regular working hours. And I can testify to Charlotte Vere's reply that contact centre staff are keenly monitored to ensure that their performance meets the targets set, regardless of whether they're working from the office or their home.

Whilst Lord Sahota referred to staffing numbers - dramatically understating them by claiming that there are 19,000 staff when there are, as of November, 66,256 - nobody seemed to conclude that, perhaps, there might not be enough staff to do what Ministers require of HMRC.

That's a question that's above my paygrade (in every sense) but, as in so much public administration, if you will the ends, you must furnish the means.

But it was brave of Charlotte Vere to admit that she had personally had to call HMRC earlier this week, and that she had waited about twenty minutes for her call to be answered. Most people wouldn't be terribly pleased to wait that long, although it seems to be increasingly standard for private companies too - don't start me about banks, airlines and furniture companies.

I'll be intrigued to see if there is any follow up as a result of the brief debate, but I'm not expecting much, based on experience...

The Lords takes a stand for decency and humanity on immigration

I'm afraid that I've always assumed that, when Conservatives talk about immigration, what they really mean is allowing white people to flow in and out relatively easily, compared to anyone else. Of course, in more recent years, that former group became more restricted - poorer Europeans weren't very welcome either.

Having made it as difficult as possible for poor people from developing and under-developed countries to come here by means of expensive visas, restricted access to the application process and, in truth, a system which favoured the wealthy, they turned to Europe. There were, as the likes of Farage said, too many foreigners coming here to steal British jobs and British benefits, driving wages down and overwhelming public services.

The fact that we had very low levels of unemployment, and thus thousands and thousands of vacancies, and that the minimum wage had consistently risen by above the rate of inflation, was irrelevant. The fact that freedom of movement in Europe worked both ways was conveniently overlooked. And the fact that the decision not to invest in our public services - increasingly staffed by those very same European nationals - was a choice of Government, was camouflaged by using European citizens as scapegoats.

There was a curious irony that, as Europeans were increasingly discouraged from coming here after the Brexit referendum, the number of non-Europeans coming to live here increased dramatically despite the controls placed upon them. It was almost as though successive Conservative Home Secretaries were determined not to practice what they so loudly preached. And yes, Theresa May, I'm looking at you.

Naturally, with Brexit looming ever closer, there is another Immigration Bill, mean-spirited and petty. And, with a Government majority of 80 in the Commons, made up of a clutch of MPs who are always unhappy about something, but rarely actually rebel (and yes, Theresa May, I'm looking at you again...), there's little prospect of any improvement there.

Thus, any hope for the insertion of some compassion in the legislation is left to the Lords. And, yesterday, the Government were given the sort of kicking that one only wishes could be metaphorically given to much of the Cabinet. Losing one vote is bad enough, but they were three down even before Oral Questions, due to a carry over of votes from the previous session (the online voting system had given up the ghost for the day).

And then the "Dubs amendment" came up for debate. Alf Dubs has been attempted to nail down the Government's declared intention to accept an agreed number of child refugees. Strangely enough, whenever anyone attempted to hold them to that commitment, Ministers always wriggled out from under their promise, and Baroness Williams of Trafford was never going to be an exception to that rule. The problem she has is that nobody really believes anything that the Government say any more, either through a lack of competence or, in some cases, basic integrity. And despite her plea that the amendment be withdrawn, there was no quarter offered and the Government fell to a ninety-four vote defeat.

The settled status scheme for EU national comes without any physical evidence - verification of settled status is only available via a website - and there have been persistent calls for the provision of physical documented proof. Naturally, the Government isn't keen, having learned nothing from the Windrush scandal. Besides, the hostile environment is no accident, it is design (and thank you, Theresa May, for absolutely nothing...). Even the Conservative benches weren't wholly friendly, and whilst Baroness Williams felt that she had total faith in the computer systems and the Home Office (and mustn't that be a lonely hill to stand on?), the Lords disagreed, handing her and Priti Patel a 106-vote defeat. It was particularly pleasing to see a Liberal Democrat Peer, Jonny Oates, moving that one.

I've admitted to being a big fan of Sally Hamwee in the past. Hard-working, thoroughly liberal, and with a keen eye for poor legislation, she is an exemplar of the strengths of the Lords. She had picked up on the indefinite limits on detention for immigration purposes. Now, it seems reasonable not to have an upper limit where it may not be possible for someone who is in the country legally to be deported (albeit that you would never want to detain anyone for long), but there is no such problem for EU/EEA nationals. Sally wanted to restrict the period for which such people could be detained to twenty-eight days. Naturally, the Government merely wanted to assure everyone that, most of the time, people are deported within twenty-eight days.

Ultimately, any immigration system should be efficient and humane. The problem is that the Home Office isn't efficient, and the Government don't really do humane (Moldova? Papua New Guinea?). And, again, the problem of the Government's slipperiness rears its ugly head again, so despite the late hour (it was nearly midnight by the time the Division took place, the Government lost again, by 28 votes.

That also meant that amendments addressing the criteria for, and duration of, initial detention and bail hearings were passed consequentially.

It was a good night for decency...

Merging Suffolk Councils - a glitch emerges...

I must thank Ros for bringing this to my attention, and the noble Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope for bringing it to hers.

Times are tough in local government, and Suffolk is no exception to that. In the absence of any agreement on forming unitary authorities for the county, the District Councils have paired off to combine services, Waveney with Suffolk Coastal, St Edmundsbury with Forest Heath, and Babergh with Mid Suffolk. Inevitably, I guess, that has led to proposals to form merged authorities, West Suffolk to cover St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath, East Suffolk to cover Waveney and Suffolk Coastal. Consultations have taken place, and the Parliamentary Orders have reached the House of Lords.

There, they have been considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has concerns... Here’s the summary of what they have to say...

These instruments provide, respectively, for the abolition of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney districts and their district councils, and for the creation of a new East Suffolk district and council which covers the same geographic area; and for the abolition of Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury districts and their district councils, and for the creation of a new West Suffolk district and council which covers the same geographic area. 

The Government’s own criteria for council merger proposals include the demonstration that any such proposal commands local support. There is no doubt that the merger proposals for East and West Suffolk are seen favourably by a number of local stakeholders. At the same time, however, significant numbers of residents and, it seems, parish councils have voiced concern about, and opposition to, the proposals; and it may be questioned whether the opportunities provided for such views to be expressed have allowed enough scope to opponents to voice their concerns and have them properly recognised.

It is, naturally, a decision for the full House to consider, but it would be unusual for the Committee’s advice to be disregarded.

I have been unimpressed by the consultation by Mid Suffolk and Babergh thus far, which as reported, has generated a favourable reaction from those surveyed. Of course, what information has been given to respondents is an interesting question, and one that somebody might like to pursue. And it wouldn’t entirely surprise me if the quality of the consultation in East Suffolk and West Suffolk hasn’t been equally sketchy.

It’s worth reading the Committee’s report in full though, and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s briefing, which forms an Appendix.

Personally, I think that moving to unitaries is inevitable - provision of services is probably more important to voters than the intangible benefits of having local authorities closer to the level of residents. But if you are going to consult, and you should, you should do it properly. It is, after all, our choice as to how our money might be spent.

Ros in the Lords: National Citizens Service Bill (Second Reading)

It isn't that often that I appear in Hansard. Ros has occasionally referred to me in terms of rural transport, but I'm not the Liberal Democrat equivalent of Mrs Bone. But, in this instance, my colleagues and I (or at least some of them) receive a little bit of praise, as Ros calls for proper focus by the new scheme on hard-to-reach, under-represented groups...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)

My Lords, I join in the thanks to the Minister for introducing this short but important Bill. In doing so, I declare an interest as a member of the advisory council of NCVO. I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have spent most of the past 30 years in various forms of public service, and in different ways, most of the people I know are also involved: they are active in their communities and they volunteer. I think that we would all agree that our lives are enriched by that experience. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is right to say that the benefits of public service work both ways. So if the creation of NCS opens that sort of opportunity for more of our young people, that is, of course, to be heartily welcomed.

However, this large project, serving some 300,000 young people, will come at a cost of £1 billion in the forthcoming five years. That is not a reason not to do it, but it is a reason why we should look very carefully at all aspects of the scheme—starting, of course, with the legislation that establishes it. Having set budgets in local authorities for some years, I am always acutely aware that expenditure on one thing means that you do not have that money to spend on something else, so it is simply not good enough to say we should do ​something because it is a good thing to do; the question is whether it is the best thing we can do. In its briefing, the LGA points out that this investment is being made at a time when most local authorities have spent the past few years cutting services under their youth budgets because of cuts in their own financial settlements, and we have heard from my noble friend Lady Barker about the quite stringent conditions under which many charities are operating.

It is interesting that there has been quite a sea change in the past few years in that more young people are volunteering. I have seen reports that there has been a 52% rise in youth volunteering. To some extent, social media and on-line tools make certain sorts of voluntary engagement easier than they have ever been. For that reason, it is important for this scheme to have a relentless focus on those who are hard to reach or disadvantaged through poverty, disability, dysfunctional family lives and so on because they are the ones who potentially have the most to gain. For people with serious disadvantage, a cost of £50 is a big hurdle, so I was pleased to hear the Minister comment on ways of making that affordable. That should be one of the key indicators when Parliament carries out its scrutiny.

The National Deaf Children’s Society raised very important points about the cost of delivering the programme to young people with particular needs, such as British sign language interpreters or speech-to-text reporting, It is currently left to NCS providers to meet the cost of supporting disabled young people, and they are concerned that this funding will not be forthcoming. I am sure that similar issues would arise with visually impaired young people and those with other disabilities. I have a close family member dealing with ME. I hope that there will be enough flexibility in the scheme to manage those sorts of difficult intermittent conditions.

It is very important that we focus on how this scheme is to be promoted within hard-to-reach groups. I am a bit concerned about the emphasis being put on mailings from HMRC to promote it as that seems rather dependent on parents receiving mailings and then acting on them. In dysfunctional families, this may very well not happen, and those who need it most may be passed by.

I was also very taken with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that young people do not like government schemes. If they do not like government schemes generally, something coming from HMRC might be particularly problematic for them. I know that there are wonderful people in HMRC - indeed, I am married to someone who works for HMRC - but there is a question about the tone of that very first engagement coming from HMRC. It also seems odd that in a scheme designed to transition young people into adulthood, the first engagement is through their parents. I am not entirely sure that we have got that right. I know that local authorities have fought very shy of becoming too closely involved with this, but they certainly need to be involved in a whole range of ways. I also wonder whether there is an opportunity to work with local authorities on voter registration in the context of this scheme because it seems to me that a great part of becoming a citizen later in life is to vote when you have the opportunity.​

To a large extent the success of this scheme will depend on the providers, so I have been interested to hear from a whole range of people who have been involved so far as well as from NCVO and other parties. While there are some areas of disagreement, they are not significant and there is widespread consensus on a number of things. The first is that the scheme must sit firmly within the context of the whole of a young person’s life from the age of five to 25 and not be about just this brief period. Secondly, we need to ensure that the whole experience is of high quality and, as Justin Davis Smith, formerly of NCVO, put it, that the programme becomes the,

must-do choice for young people.

I think that is right.

Thirdly, the programme needs to sit within the wider volunteering system and make effective use of the knowledge and expertise of specialist charities, social enterprises and providers, especially in their localities. The scale of this programme could mean that smaller providers get frozen out of the commissioning process, as is often the case. The social action part of the programme should be not just a one-off but the start of a long-term involvement with volunteering and social action. However, finding meaningful voluntary activity is not always easy. Voluntary organisations themselves need more resources to manage an influx of volunteers; without them young people either cannot participate or will receive a poorer quality experience as volunteers. Fourthly, partner organisations need to be effectively and adequately resourced. One of the existing providers, The Challenge, explained how it provides personal coaches for young people who have been involved with the criminal justice system or who have been in care. This is almost certainly effective, but, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, it is very expensive.

The Bill also makes a number of provisions to make the NCS Trust accountable to Parliament and the public, which is welcome. We have to think acknowledge and, perhaps in later stages of the Bill, think about how we manage the tension between the sort of independence which the noble Lord, Lord Maude, talked about and the need to manage a very large sum of taxpayers’ money. I got slightly nervous at the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Maude, about the morass of public appointments. As boring as process sometimes might be, it usually ensures that you get a solid outcome in which people can have trust. With Kids Company we saw what happens when you have exuberant, charismatic leadership. It does not necessarily work well. We need to learn those lessons.

Conventional reporting - the annual report, the accounts and so on - can be of limited use. Charities now quite rightly focus on the impact they have, and NCS reporting should be exactly the same. Some of it will be qualitative, drawn on the experience of participants, but given this amount of public money, I expect to see a lot of data about the numbers of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, those who complete the programme rather just start it and those with disabilities. Over time, I expect some outcomes with regard to those who remain involved with voluntary service and to whether there have been impacts on employment, reductions in crime and so on, both on a personal level and in aggregate.​

It is no longer good enough for something to mean well; we have to get it right. I cannot put it better than the youth social action charity City Year UK. In its briefing it said that it is vital, now more than ever, to give the next generation the chance to play their part in shaping our country and themselves through service to others and that NCS at 16 should be the beginning and not the end of those opportunities to serve.

Ros in the Lords - Brexit: Environmental and Climate Change Policy

Returning from the summer Recess, Ros was back in action pretty quickly. As the former Chair of the House of Lords EU Sub-Committee on Energy and Environment, you might have expected her to have something to contribute to a debate tabled by Kate Parminter...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)

My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for tabling today’s debate and giving the House an opportunity to debate an aspect of Brexit which was underdiscussed both during the referendum campaign and subsequently.

At the outset, it is worth reflecting on how far we have come in the last 40 years. Occasionally you still hear people of a certain age refer to London as “The Smoke”, which reminds us of what the air quality was like here in our capital just four decades ago. Many people who swam off Britain’s beaches will regale you with horror stories about doing the breaststroke through pools of raw sewage; just last week the Guardian published some pretty gruesome photographs of Blackpool beach 40 years ago, which showed just that. Standards of animal welfare have increased significantly, and measures to reduce the harmful effects of pesticides and fertilisers have had a significant impact.

However, of course there is still a lot to do. The World Health Organization recently warned that dozens of British cities were failing to meet air pollution standards and it is estimated that over 16,000 deaths in 2012 were caused by ambient pollution. Recently, 4.9% of bathing sites in the UK were revealed to have ​poor water quality. We are just beginning to understand the impact of tiny plastic microbeads in our oceans on marine ecosystems. The threat to native species from habitat destruction, alien species, or diseases such as ash dieback is very real. The State of Nature 2016 report found that more than 10% of species are at risk of extinction in the UK and nearly 60% have declined since 1970.

It seems to me that, in reflecting on how we have made the progress we have, we find the pointers to how we will deal with the challenges we have yet to face. It is true that some change has been effected by individuals and organisations who are motivated to do the right thing, and in some cases the power of public opinion alters behaviour. But overwhelmingly, public policy drives change, through fiscal instruments, regulatory measures or by using targets to alter behaviour.

The development of environmental policy in the European Union has taken place over the last 40 years and continues today. In doing so, it has revealed some of the many strengths—and, if we are honest, some of the weaknesses—of a common EU approach. However, it is based on the inarguable logic that most environmental issues are cross-border in character or impact, and are better addressed by co-operative action than unilaterally. The transboundary and sometimes global nature of many environmental issues means that a collective approach is either more efficient or simply essential to address them effectively. Obvious examples apart from climate change include the protection of migratory birds and air and water pollution.

The importance of the single market and its development has also given an impetus to create common EU rules, particularly for environmental and technical product standards, which enables benchmarking and target setting to take place. Negotiating common standards can allow a degree of environmental ambition which would not be available to individual Governments acting alone because of fears about short-term impacts on competitiveness. Common standards also inhibit the possibility of economic advantages accruing to those countries that have lower environmental standards. A further advantage of the EU system is that it has a range of legislative, funding and other policy measures which can work in combination, and of course EU environmental legislation is backed up by hard legal enforcement mechanisms of a kind that is rare in international agreements.

It is also true that the EU has several institutional advantages that other international fora lack. First, contrary to Eurosceptic myths, EU institutions make decisions on a democratic basis, through a process of debate and adoption by both the European Parliament and the Council, which gives them the authority to monitor, report back and enforce binding legislation. The requirement for member states regularly to report on progress has created a culture of transparency which allows citizens to see how their country is performing.

A practical example of that is air quality. Our Supreme Court ruled that the UK was in breach of the 2008 directive, which resulted in the UK Government publishing a new air quality plan last year. I am not ​convinced that British citizens would have known about the scale of the problem or that government would have done anything about it had we not been subject to EU law. Indeed, the breaching of EU quality regulations was cited by Zac Goldsmith as a reason not to extend Heathrow, which shows that even the most ardent Brexiteer is not above praying the EU in aid when it suits their argument.

In the debate about “taking control” very little has been said about what that means for the future of our environment. The outcome closest to where we are now, the so-called soft Brexit, leaves the UK outside the common fisheries and common agricultural policies. I argue that that is a mixed blessing. But both the birds and habitats directives and the bathing water directive would no longer apply, and those policies have provided the backbone of conservation in the EU and have generated significant improvements for species and habitats. Of course, if we were to maintain some sort of access to the single market, we would still have to comply with a whole raft of EU environmental legislation, while having no say in its creation.

However, it looks as though we are heading for hard Brexit, and there is a wide consensus that this will create identifiable and substantial risks to future UK environmental ambitions and outcomes. Either because of political ideology or necessitated by a damaged economy, there is a significant risk that environmental standards will be lowered to seek competitive advantage outside the EU.

As we move towards the date identified by the Prime Minister for triggering Article 50, we should be seeing much more clarity from the Government on the relative priority they intend to give to environmental issues. If the approach is, as we have heard, to keep all the legislation at the point of exit and then to review it as we go along, that seems perfectly sensible, as it will mean that we will not have immediate legal uncertainty and can debate individual elements as time goes on. However, it is worth reading the report, published today, from the House of Lords EU Select Committee, which shows that even this relatively straightforward-sounding approach is not as simple as one might think. In the longer run, there is no reason why we cannot adhere to EU standards, if that is what we agree, but of course we will then fall outside the legal enforcement mechanisms, so we would have to think about how we would do that.

What business needs above all is regulatory certainty, and ironically it is often the slow pace of getting agreement in the EU that provides that certainty. Things, once agreed, are not easy to change. There is now a significant period of uncertainty, which could go on for some years.

Taking control means taking responsibility. We now have to decide as a nation what sort of agriculture we want. Is it about the production of cheap food or do we continue to put value on the environment, landscape and animal welfare? And if we do, are the Government prepared to reframe financial support for farmers to sustain this? What sort of framework do the Government envisage for managing fisheries in a sustainable way, and how do they intend to work with our European neighbours to achieve this?​

The EU sub-committee which I chaired until May produced a report on regional marine co-operation which suggested that national Governments need to do much more in working together for the marine environment. I am afraid that the Government’s response to that was pretty tepid. They will need to rethink that because, outside the EU, that will be the only show in town. In any event, the WTO is about to start discussions on a global fisheries scheme, so taking control may not be as easy as it sounds. In addition, are we going to hold on to the principles enshrined in the habitats directives, and the targets for recycling and ending land-filling?

It seems to me that as we go forward, while we cannot expect detailed answers, especially today, from the Government on how they will tackle all these things, we should expect a sense of how they are going about it. Whom are the Government talking to? Whom are they consulting to identify the risks and opportunities as we go forward? Significantly, from the point of view of this House, how is Parliament to be involved?

A new Leader in the Lords... some thoughts from a close observer

So, the count took place, with both candidates and the outgoing Leader present, under the close watch of the Deputy Chief Whip, Christine Humphreys, and I was able to declare the result as being;

Dick Newby 59 votes, Robin Teverson 44 votes

Close, but no cigar, for the former MEP, but it was no disgrace to pick up more than 40% of the votes.  I wouldn't be surprised to see him take on a leadership role in the future.

Dick Newby has been on my radar for more than three decades now, from his SDP days. He, like I, has a Civil Service background, he was predominantly a back room influence but now has the challenging job of leading a Group which is not always easily led.

His first task will be to persuade someone to come forward to assume his former role as Chief Whip, a job which some might say is a bit harder than that of Leader. After all, how do you instil discipline into a group of people who are there for life and who have done or been most things already? Not so much enforcer as persuader.

I will have to get used to a new Leader too. When I first started seeing Ros, Tom McNally was into his third year as Leader. I tended to refer to him as the 'Glorious Leader', at first as a mark of respect, and then, as we got to know each other, out of warmth. Indeed, I still refer to him as 'Glorious Leader' when we occasionally run into each other, adding the suffix 'Emeritus' in deference to the fact that we have had a new Leader since.

Jim Wallace hasn't been in post anywhere near as long as Tom was, and we haven't had as much contact - my relocation to Suffolk makes me a relatively infrequent visitor, and there don't seem to be as many gatherings of the Group and spouses as there were - but he seems nice enough.

And so, we wait to see what a Newby leadership brings. The Group will evolve, and almost certainly shrink too. There are a number of members in their eighties, who may not welcome many more years of service, and with replenishments at the mercy of Theresa May, who I don't think is likely to be generous, the burden of opposition will fall on those who remain. Luckily, the recent intakes of new blood are keen and sharp.

Me, I'll be an occasional visitor to Whips Office, as and when circumstance brings me to Westminster, and I'm sure that Ros will keep me up to date with those stories that she can share. And I wish Dick good fortune. He'll bring his own thoughts to the role, and I'm confident that he'll do everything he can to make the Liberal Democrat voice heard in the Upper Chamber...

Liberal Bureaucracy - ballot counter to the nobility

So, I'm on my way to the big city, on an unseasonably warm September day (it's apparently 33 degrees Celsius in Brentwood as I pass through on the train), to perform one of my more enjoyable roles, that of Returning Officer for the Liberal Democrat Peers, although, in strictness, I'm not the Returning Officer, the Chief Whip is. There is no forelock tugging required, which is good, because I'd have to look up what a forelock is, and it's probably not in the Liberal Democrat guidance for Returning Officers anyway.

Today, I'm counting the ballot papers for the election of the new Leader of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party in the House of Lords, because, although with only two candidates it is effectively a first past the post election, they rather like to have some external validation. I also come cheap, as I never claim expenses...

The contest is Dick Newby versus Robin Teverson, both of whom would be capable of doing the job, so no fears there. If Dick wins, the Parliamentary Party are in the market for a new Chief Whip, if Robin wins, there might be a vacancy for a Liberal Democrat Chair of one of the House of Lords EU Sub-Committees, as he chairs Ros's old Energy and Environment Committee.

So, I'd better get on, I guess. My quills are sharpened, the parchment is rolled, we're set to go...

@BaronessRos in the Lords - EU: Energy Governance (EUC Report)

Despite the fact that Ros is no longer the Chair of the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment sub-committee, the work done under her leadership still rumbles on, partly due to scheduling delays, as she notes in the speech that follows.

In her speech earlier today, she noted the paucity of the Government's response to her Committee's report...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity this evening to debate the sub-committee’s report on energy union governance. It is some six months since our report was published, although having just heard that the Digital Skills Committee has waited some 16 months for its debate, perhaps I should not grumble as much as I thought I would. However, I make the general point that Members of this House put a huge amount of effort into Select Committee reports, the staff work extremely hard, and outside witnesses and organisations take a great interest in the work we do, so it is a great pity when the House does not find time to debate these closer to publication. Nevertheless, I am pleased to be able to present the report this evening.

For any Government, nothing is more important than keeping the lights on, but we are trying to maintain a supply which is not only secure but affordable for consumers, whether they are individuals or businesses, and which is environmentally sustainable. That challenge—that trilemma—has focused minds on the benefits of co-operation as a means of achieving those goals, and the EU energy union is one vehicle for that co-operation.

I have had the privilege of chairing the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee for three years, and I can honestly say that it has been the most rewarding and fulfilling experience I have had in my 16 years in this House. But now I have, sadly, been rotated off. It is a painless but not entirely pleasant experience, and I shall miss the work a good deal. The members of the committee have always been immensely supportive, and one of the great joys of the work is that we have never been hampered by discussions or debates of a political nature. Our debates are robust at times but have always focused on the issues, and are all the better for that. I therefore extend my sincere thanks to each current member of the committee and to those who, like me, have been rotated off.

I also place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, the chairman of the European Union Committee. His leadership, encouragement and personal support have been a great help to me. My noble friend Lord Teverson, who I see in his place, has now taken up the position of chairman of the committee and I have no doubt that he will enjoy the experience as much as I have and bring to it his great knowledge of the wide range of subject areas covered by the sub-committee. He served in the European Parliament and previously chaired an EU sub-committee. I wish him well. He, like all of us in this House, will be supported by efficient, knowledgeable and highly-skilled staff, whose commitment to our work, and indeed to the House, is absolute.

As your Lordships may know, the remit of the sub-committee includes agriculture, fisheries, environment, energy and climate change. The subject of the short report for debate this evening is firmly within the realm of energy. It is clear to most of us that energy policy in the 21st century cannot be formed from an isolationist perspective. The European Commission’s energy union strategy recognises this reality and attempts to ensure that Europe has a secure, affordable and low-carbon supply of energy. It aims to deliver energy security, reduce emissions and provide a better deal for consumers, and uses energy efficiency measures, the completion of the internal energy market and research and innovation to deliver this. An agreed EU energy governance framework will be essential to underpin the relationships between the EU institutions on the one hand and member states on the other. Such a framework will seek to meet the energy policy objectives of both the EU and member states but also to respect member states’ national sovereignty.

Before I go on to speak about the report itself I will make one or two comments about the background to it. The committee’s report was published in December and was the result of a short inquiry following a stakeholder seminar and a ministerial evidence session, as well as written submissions. The inquiry was timely; the European Commission published the first state of the energy union report last November and is expected to bring forward legislative proposals on energy governance later this year. Our report offers some thoughts and recommendations ahead of those legislative proposals. I extend my thanks to the specialist adviser to the inquiry, Antony Froggatt, whose comments and guidance on complex and rather technical matters were invaluable.

Our report called on the European Commission to ensure that the proposals for a future energy governance framework include legal clarity, a respect for member state sovereignty, a strong focus on security of supply, a commitment to the consumer, real ambition for decarbonisation, and increased regional co-operation. Indeed, we argue that the EU-wide binding 2030 renewables target will not be delivered unless it is backed up by a monitoring and enforcement mechanism which acts as a guarantor for the agreement and ensures that member states share the effort equitably.

The European Commission response was received on 3 March and was largely supportive. The UK Government’s response to the report was received on 29 February and was accompanied by a covering letter from Andrea Leadsom. It would be fair to say that the response has focused on current UK Government policy and the domestic measures which are already in place. In many cases the response simply avoids commenting on specific EU-level conclusions and recommendations. Overall, it lacks detail and comprehensive engagement with the arguments put forward by the report. I fear that this is due to current circumstances and that the Government are nervous about saying much at all because of the way things stand now. Nevertheless, I will make four points and I will be grateful if the Minister could reply to them at the end of the debate.

In paragraph C of the response, the Government avoid commenting on the report’s headline recommendation that the Commission should be able to propose new measures to guarantee existing EU-level commitments. The response contains a broad statement that agrees with the streamlining of reporting requirements. However, we argue that given the political importance of the EU-wide binding renewables target of 27% by 2030, it is noteworthy that there is no elucidation of the Government’s position. While we know that the Government are sceptical of the sort of enforcement measures proposed by the Commission, we would have hoped for some real engagement with the recommendation, even if only to disagree with it and to suggest what an alternative might look like.

In paragraph B the Government are silent on the committee’s recommendation that they should be transparent, timely and comprehensive in reporting their own progress against each of the dimensions of the energy union. Can the Minister say what the Government’s policy on this is?

In paragraph D the Government comment on bringing forward new renewable support schemes to bring forward additional offshore wind generation. However, they seem to have confused ongoing industry support with the more important need to maintain investor confidence through long-term and consistent policies. This point about investor confidence was a major theme in the committee’s 2013 report No Country is an Energy Island, and its conclusions are as valid now as they were then.

Finally, the Government’s comments on capacity markets are at odds with the view of the sub-committee in a number of areas. The sub-committee recommended that there should be a common framework at EU level to assess the need for and the means of achieving adequacy standards which secure availability of supply without escalating prices to consumers. The Government appear to disagree, arguing that this is a political decision that cannot take place until the internal energy market is completed. In fact, in the sub-committee’s view this is a technical task and would contribute to the completion of the internal market. The Commission agrees with the sub-committee that a common framework within the EU should be developed. Therefore are the Government really opposed to common adequacy standards? On measuring generation adequacy, the Government seem to agree with a common methodology at EU level but also seem to want national assessments. There seems to be an inconsistency here. Finally, on energy storage and demand-side measures the report argues that they should be given equal access to domestic capacity markets. The Government point out that these are already eligible to participate in the capacity market but do not comment on the inequality which we have highlighted.

I have one final point about the UK Government’s overall approach to regional co-operation. The previous report authored by the sub-committee on regional marine co-operation, The North Sea Under Pressure, concluded that no existing body or mechanism has a sufficiently broad remit to facilitate the political co-operation required to make the necessary step change in management of the North Sea basin, and we argued for the re-establishment of a North Sea Ministers’ conference. This recommendation was rejected by government on the grounds that such co-operation was taking place elsewhere. I fear that our calls have fallen on deaf ears. Last week the Vice-President for Energy Union and the Commissioner for Climate Action, with Ministers from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, signed a political declaration and action plan on North Sea co-operation. The declaration will facilitate the building of missing electricity links and allow more trading of energy and further integration of energy markets. Reinforcing regional co-operation will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve security of supply.

The UK was, sadly, absent. The announcement, like much these days, was reported on Twitter and there were lots of comments asking, “Where’s the union jack?”. I fear I know the answer to that but, even if the UK felt that in the current circumstances it was not able to be highly visible, I would like to think that we are engaged in this process. After all, if that well-known maritime nation Luxembourg thought that it was worth while attending and co-operating, it would seem very odd for the UK not to be there. The benefits of co-operating and the savings that come from it are enormous, so it really makes sense to do so.

Energy is crucial for all of us and the objective of secure, affordable and low-carbon energy can be aided by co-operation across borders. The EU has a really important role to play in bringing member states together, whether in a legislative framework or in a spirit of voluntary co-operation. The UK Government need to do more to demonstrate that they are serious about leading in this endeavour, whatever the outcome of 23 June.

Baroness Hamwee - a cause for celebration

I have, in the past, noted my respect (and not a little affection) for Sally Hamwee. She has been a key figure within the Parliamentary Party in the House of Lords, a valued President of the London Regional Party and, put simply, a nice person. She made my time as a member of the Regional Executive a little more enjoyable than it might otherwise have been. And, it should be noted, she and Ros worked closely together as frontbenchers over a period of years. Yes, I like the noble Baroness.

And so, when Ros mentioned that we had been invited to a gathering to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of her arrival in the House of Lords, I was at first surprised that it had been that long, and then keen to attend myself. It also meant that I could wear a favourite old jacket that now fits again, and renew old and valued acquaintances. What could be better?

The sun was shining, and Ros and I had drunk coffee before wandering over to the Liberal Democrat corner of the Lords, where nibbles and something to drink had been laid on, and the Parliamentary Party had gathered to mark the occasion. There was a speech by the Leader, Jim Wallace, saying how valued she was, and then Sally was prevailed upon to say a few words, before applause broke out.

It was a really pleasant evening, and whilst Jim Wallace did offer a toast to another twenty-five years, I would rather that she had an opportunity to do all of those things that she would rather like to do. She owes the Party nothing at this point - I might instead suggest that the Party rather owes her a debt of gratitude for being such a great proponent of liberal ideas and a keen observer of the all-important detail that bedevils bad legislation. It should also noted how effective she has been in the Home Affairs brief, a combination of sound legal knowledge and innate liberalism.

Thank you, Sally, it's been great. And so have you...

No title, but a quick sashay - 27 October 2015... time to dance whilst the Lords burns and, now I come to mention it...

So, Lord Trefgarne, whose side ARE you on?

The Government loses a(nother) vote in the Lords, and all of a sudden, Lords Reform is on the cards. Now, given that they've tried to exclude anything up to two million voters from the electoral register, rigging the constituency boundary review in the process, intend to shut off the Official Opposition's primary source of income, they're hardly holding themselves up as defenders of the democratic process. And now, they've come for the Lords.

Get up and dance, you know that you want to...

It is quite amazing what the internet can expose you to, especially if, like me, you are of an inquisitive nature. So, try this. I defy you not to want to move...

On this day in... 2007

Did I have a small hand in the changing of the guard amongst Central Suffolk Tories? Well, I answered a question that was apparently being asked, and then, all of a sudden, Sir Michael Lord was gone. Sadly, for Tim Passmore, the usual rule whereby the local Tories are considered too useless to fill vacancies created by retirement applied, and that nice Dr Poulter won the selection. No wonder some of the locals don't like him...

[insert title here] - 19 October 2015

Something to look forward to next week in the Lords

The Parliamentary Party in the Lords increases by two next week, as Shas Sheehan is introduced on Monday, and Jonny Oates on Tuesday. I really ought to write about this for Liberal Democrat Voice, oughtn't I?


On this day... in 2007

Is it really eight years since the Clegg versus Huhne leadership contest got underway? It must be, because I was getting ready to chair the first public hustings in Newbury the next day. As usual, I was somewhat undecided. Luckily, I had Ros to keep in on the straight and narrow...


Never let it be said that I don't know how to have a good time...

This evening's task is to draw up a system for selecting our Party's delegations to ALDE's Council and Congress. Gender, ethnicity, nations, all of these have to be carefully counterbalanced and accounted for. I may be gone some time... At least you'll know who's fault it is...


New York, New York...

If someone had told me two months ago that I would have been watching a World Series contender, I would have laughed at you. Yes, the New York Mets, the Cinderella of New York baseball, are two-nil up in the best of seven National League Championship Series against the Chicago Cubs. But, Ros and I can claim that we saw them play if they go all the way. Their likely opponents, the Kansas city Royals, who are two-nil up against the Toronto Blue Jays in the American league equivalent. We saw them play the Boston Red Sox two weeks later...

A European Union first, with @BaronessRos at its heart...

One of the curiosities of the way the European Union works is the right of the national parliaments to stop, or slow, a proposal of the Commission if it is thought to violate the principle of subsidiarity. If one third of them raise an objection, a so-called 'yellow card', the commission is obliged to review the proposal. If more than half of them object, a so-called 'orange card', the Council or the Parliament can immediately vote the proposal down.

There has been talk of a red card, something that William Hague raised as Foreign Secretary, whereby a majority of national parliaments could veto a proposal, killing it stone dead, but there seems to be little enthusiasm for that beyond the Conservative Party. However, the next innovation has come from, perhaps, an unlikely quarter, the House of Lords European Union Select Committee.

The concept of a 'green card', whereby a group of national Parliaments propose that the European Commission take action on a specified issue, emerged from the report, "The Role of National Parliaments in the European Union", and, since then, there has been some discreet lobbying done by members of the Select Committee, chaired by Lord Boswell of Aynho, of other European Union scrutiny committees across Europe.

This culminated in a debate at the COSAC (Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union) plenary meeting in Riga at the beginning of last month, where a majority of speakers supported the idea of enhancing the political dialogue by introducing a "green card" and several agreed to launch a pilot project.

The pilot project is to be based on the House of Lords report on food waste, produced by Sub-Committee D of the House of Lords European Union Select Committee, chaired by none other than Ros, and a letter has been sent to the chairs of European Affairs Committees in the other national Parliaments in advance of the next COSAC meeting In Luxembourg this week, seeking their support or amendments.

If all goes well, a letter will then be sent to Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, urging the Commission to take into account a series of recommendations when drawing up the proposed circular economy package to replace the one withdrawn in February.

It will be interesting to see what happens, as the notion of national parliaments working in harmony with the European Commission is a fairly radical one which might lead to a rather better Europe...

Lib Dem peerages row - it is, apparently, an outrage...

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, it seems that the notion that the Liberal Democrats might pick up some new Peers through the Dissolution Honours list is upsetting some people. It is, they claim, causing increased disproportionality in the Upper Chamber. Well, yes, although nobody seemed to care very much when it worked the other way for so many years.

And if proportionality is such a good thing, are all of these people manning the barricades in favour of proportional representation? Almost certainly not.

The Dissolution Honours list is designed to reflect a desire to honour those perceived to have served their country well and faithfully over a period of years in Parliament (you will notice that I use the word 'perceived' - that's rather a matter of personal opinion, I appreciate). And some worthy recipients will be named in due course, I suspect.

There will be arguments about whether there were enough women, or BAME, Peers announced, undoubtedly, although those are as much arguments to be had within the political parties as anything.

But, in the lists of new Peers that will follow this one, it seems unlikely that there will be many Liberal Democrats, if any - if the proportionality argument resonates with David Cameron, that is. And the Grim Reaper will also act to level things up, if that's what people want - there is a steady winnowing out of the membership year on year.

So, good luck to the new Peers, whoever they are. Holding the government to account, scrutinising its activities and examining proposed legislation for defects is seldom glamorous, but in a Parliamentary system designed as it currently is, it is a means for Liberal Democrats to contribute to the governance of this nation.

Liberal Democrat Peers propose liberalisation of cannabis law?

It seems that our Noble Friends in the House of Lords have decided that some radical thinking is necessary. They're right, of course.

And so, as part of a possibly new, expansive, and definitely liberal approach, Brian Paddick and Sally Hamwee have submitted the following amendment to the Psychoactive Substances Bill, about to have its Second Reading in the Lords;

After Clause 10

Insert the following new Clause—

“Control of cannabis

(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall make regulations to amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001—

(a) to omit from Schedule 1 to the regulations the substances listed in subsection (2); and

(b) to add those substances to Schedule 2 to the regulations.

(2) The substances referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) cannabis; and

(b) cannabis resin.”

What this would mean, if my reading is correct, is that cannabis and cannabis resin could be administered by a doctor or dentist, or manufactured or compounded by a pharmacist. Possession of such administered or prescribed cannabis or caanabis resin would also not be illegal any more.

Perhaps someone could confirm my thinking here?

It's been a slightly unusual day on Planet Bureaucrat...

A few seconds of unexpected fame...

Today saw the Aviva Women's Tour cycle race come through Suffolk, as Stage 1 took the riders from Bury St Edmunds to Aldeburgh. What I hadn't factored for that I would get such a great view from my office window, as the race swirled down Museum Street, then took a rather awkward little right-hander into Princes Street before turning left again at the crossroads below the office.

I was lucky enough to get a good picture with my iPhone, and posted it on Twitter. Within a few minutes, I received a request from the BBC to use the picture and, ten minutes later, there it was, with the text of my tweet, and a photo credit, on the BBC Suffolk website. For the record, I did not receive, nor did I seek, payment for the material...

By mid-afternoon, I was on a train to London, in order to perform my duty as Returning Officer for our Parliamentary Party in the House of Lords. In truth, it isn't terribly complex, with an electorate of exactly one hundred, and there were three candidates for two positions, making my task a pretty straightforward one, but it is nice to be asked, and I like both Ros's colleagues and the team in the Whips Office. Oh, and yes, I did not receive, nor did I seek, payment for my services...

As has already been published elsewhere, Navnit Dholakia and Kate Parminter were the successful candidates, bringing both talent and diversity to our leadership in the Lords. And the fact that Navnit gave me an excellent character reference when I first started seeing Ros makes no difference to how I see him! Kate worked with Ros on the EU Select Sub-Committee D, and has real passion. So, given the quality on our red benches, no pressure on our team on the green ones, I suppose.

I made the 20.00 train home, which was a bonus, as it allowed me to start work on a presentation I have to give on Saturday. There is, it seems, no rest for the bureaucrat...

@UKIP Leader in the Lords demands LESS scrutiny of the European Union

Lord Pearson of Rannoch - not
acting in good faith or just not as
clever as he thinks?

In a somewhat curious intervention today, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, leader of the UKIP peers, sought to amend the recommendations of the Lords Committee of Selection (it elect and propose to the House the names of the Members of Select Committees, the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees, and any other body referred to it by the Chairman of Committees), reducing the number of sub-committees of the European Union Committee from six to two.

Now, whilst one might not agree with all the findings of the six sub-committees (and I declare an interest here, as my wife currently chairs Sub-Committee D), the idea that one-third as many people could properly scrutinise all that comes out of Brussels, let alone find time to suggest alternatives or, in some cases, rejection, is pretty absurd.

There are proposals coming out of Brussels, on energy union, or the circular economy, on capital markets, which are hugely complex and have potentially significant impacts on the way our economy works. And you may not like that, especially if you're a UKIP supporter. On the other hand, you may see the benefits of working together with your neighbours, and want to make the proposals as effective as they can be. I assume that Malcolm Pearson is in the former category.

However, his position is bankrupt, in that he does not want to simply oppose the works of the European Union in an honourable manner, standing up on the floor of the chamber to oppose whatever proposal it is, he wants to destroy the mechanisms by which those who disagree with him, or who are open-minded on the subject, might recommend better solutions, ones that suit our country better. It is, I suggest, mischief-making of a childish kind.

He did offer another proposal, which was to ensure that the various EU committees have memberships split evenly between sceptics and others. He insults his fellow Peers by suggesting that they do not have the ability to critical examine the work of the European Union, nor that they wish to. Given that the scrutiny work of the House of Lords is widely respected as being amongst the most thorough in the Union, he might want to reflect on whether or not he means that.

Scrutiny of the European Union, and of the Government's response to it, is too important to be interfered with by knaves with ill intent. Lord Pearson of Rannoch's disingenuousness is an underhand attempt to weaken Britain's influence and he should be called on it.

The week ahead in the Lords: 8-11 June - drugs, devolution and good deeds

So, the Queen's Speech out of the way, it's time for the business of holding Government to account. And, with our Parliamentary Party having found a space on the Opposition benches, it is time to get to work.

Three bills start their serious progress this week after the various First Readings went through on the day after the Queen's Speech itself.

The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill builds on the 2009 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act and makes provisions for elected mayors and so forth (all very "Northern Powerhouse"). John Shipley will be leading for us on this, and although I for one have grave reservations about placing supreme power in the hands of people who, despite being democratically elected, won't really be that accountable, the idea of developing alternative economic engines outside London is a 'good thing', as Lord Bonkers would probably say.

With Tuesday comes the Psychoactive Substances Bill. Brian Paddick has already made his views on this abundantly clear. As he said on Tuesday;

I believe that an authoritarian approach, where blanket laws prohibit everything unless the Government allow it, sets a potentially dangerous precedent. The Bill is well meaning, with the current practice of selling so-called legal highs on the high street, one molecule different from a banned substance, in packets marked “not fit for human consumption”, is a nonsense. But we must ask ourselves, what is the purpose of this Bill? If the purpose, as it surely should be, is to prevent harm, the misuse of drugs should be treated as a health issue and not a criminal one.

He concluded;

This Bill would simply add to the confusion surrounding the attempts to protect people from the harm caused by misusing drugs and push pleasure-seekers into the hands of criminals.

On Wednesday, the relatively uncontroversial Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill starts its serious progress. This seeks to amend the 2011 Charities Act (which perhaps indicates the quality of some of the legislation passed in the last Parliament) and, whilst there are some differences of opinion, which Liz Barker will doubtlessly address, it isn't expected to take up a lot of the time of the House.

Raj Loomba has obtained a short debate on Thursday on "empowering women, including widows, in the developing world in order to aid conflict resolution and the long-term sustainability of more stable societies", a subject that he has been very persistent on since joining the House. Baroness Verma, responding on behalf of the Government, may provide some clues as to the future direct of Development Aid policy.

There are no Oral Questions from the Liberal Democrat benches this week - there were three last week, in fairness. However, Baroness Gardner of Parkes has one on Tuesday on extending the right to buy to Housing Association properties. Don't assume that, just because she's a Conservative, that ashe's in favour...

And finally, whilst one might conclude from the Parliament website that the Select Committees are not meeting, the European Union one actually is.

House of Lords debates that you might have missed: in which confusion reigns...

Parliament can be a very dry place indeed, lacking in humour or goodwill. However, the House of Lords isn't like the 'Other Place'. Sometimes, humour escapes into the chamber, as shown by this excerpt from the third day of the debate on the Queen's Speech on Monday...

Lord Dubs (Lab): Before I get to the heart of what I want to say, I hope that I may be permitted to refer to a matter which is obliquely relevant to what we are about to discuss today. Five years ago the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, joined the House. That was a welcome addition, even if it meant that there was an additional vote on the Conservative side. However, I was rather slow in realising that there were other aspects of significance to this, and the alarm bells started to ring rather slowly.

One day, soon after the noble Lord arrived in the House, I got a bill from the restaurant here. It was a pretty good meal but one which I had not eaten. Indeed, his bank manager would have been happier about the size of the bill than mine would have been. Certainly, given the success of the various editions of House of Cards, on which I congratulate him, I think that he is better able to stand those bills than I am.

But then other things began to happen. I got a phone message to call No. 10 urgently. This occasionally happened under Labour, so I called and rather foolishly gave myself away rather than listen to what was on offer. I hope that the time it took that message to then get to the noble Lord did not in any way jeopardise his career or perhaps lose him a ministerial post. Certainly, that made me think again about what was going on.

Then letters came my way, a room which I had not reserved was booked in my name, and I had letters from Members of this House congratulating me on the way I had handled the EU referendum Bill. I felt that I just could not take credit for that. I think that Labour Party policy is now changing but I did not like the Bill at the time and, certainly, to be given credit for it by several Members of this House was more than I felt I could keep quiet about.

In pondering this, I then came across a little booklet about confusable Peers. It is not for general circulation among Members of this House but is a booklet which the staff, quite properly, use to help them. I do not wish what I have said in any way to be seen as a criticism of the staff of this House. When I was in the Commons, I once was confused with Frank Dobson. Those noble Lords who know him will know that he and I do not look particularly alike. When that was mentioned in the House, we got letters of apology from senior officials. I do not want any apology because this is not about that; I just want to clarify a misunderstanding.

The booklet I got hold of is not about confusing Peers or confused Peers, which of course would be a much thicker volume, but about confusable Peers. It shows pairs, trios or quartets of Peers who can be confused with each other and the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and I are included. This interesting little booklet enables staff to differentiate us.

Lord Dobbs (Con):I find the confusion remarkable. After all, my noble near-kinsman is a craggy faced, Czech-born socialist and, quite clearly, I am not. Perhaps I may come to his rescue and settle his qualms. I have taken advice from the Garter Principal King of Arms who says that he can think of only one way of us resolving this confusion; namely, that one of us should become an Earl. I humbly submit myself to my fate.

Lord Dubs: I would rather he took that honour than me. I would have a job explaining that one away but I am grateful to the noble Lord.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab): My noble friend’s problems are nothing compared with mine. I keep getting invited to meetings of Conservative lawyers for reasons I cannot understand, but they will probably become clear when we come to the reply to this debate.

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD): I wonder whether the noble Lord finds it as confusing as my case: I keep being asked for very large sums of money on the grounds that I am Lord Ashcroft.

Lord Dubs: I hope that that little interlude has helped many of us to decide where we are and who we are. I would be grateful to the House if it would allow me to intrude on the time a little...