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.

Devolution: now that we've found love, what are we gonna do with it?

So, Scotland having voted to remain in the Union but with an understanding that there will be greater devolution to their Parliament, we can now move on to what it means for the rest of us.

Luckily, as a Liberal Democrat, I understand and accept the logic of devolution, of subsidiarity and federalism, which is that things will be different in different places, with a greater priority placed on X in Y, as opposed to Z. And, frankly, assuming that we can annex the Waveney Valley and North Essex, and make Ros our constitutional monarch, the notion of a free Suffolk is a strangely alluring one...

But, seriously, the Scots, the Welsh, and even the Northern Irish have it fairly easy, in that their boundaries are clearly defined, and they have an established tier of governance. For the English, however, it isn't necessarily as simple.

England is big, disproportionately so by comparison with the other constituent nations, making the conflict between it, and a federal United Kingdom, potentially debilitating. And yet, can English regions be credibly treated as being on a par with Scotland, for example? Indeed, can you design English regions that would encompass everyone and retain a sense of attachment in their residents?

In other federal states, such as the United States, Germany and India, there is no such dominant single element, so there is little help there to be had, and we will have to come up with an answer that enables Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to feel that they have a real state in a federal union, yet prevents the English from feeling as though they are being constrained or otherwise taken advantage of.

This offers a real challenge to politicians, especially Westminster ones, most of whom were elected to exercise power, rather than to give it away. If the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament are to be mirrored in England, what is the purpose of Westminster as it is currently constituted? Indeed, whisper it quietly, where does the House of Lords, elected or otherwise, fit in?

If Westminster is to become the home of a federal Parliament, how many representatives do you need, and what are they for? Is London the right place for the English Parliament, and do you need regional and sub-regional tiers? You could, for example, offer a choice between regions and counties, so East Anglia might emerge as an administrative tier, or Suffolk might take on extra powers.

Six months ago, this would have seemed entirely esoteric, and a debate for constitution geeks. Now, everyone has a stake in this even if they don't really understand it. But, it's a debate that is firmly on the turf of Liberal Democrats, and we have an opportunity to make the case that we've been rehearsing for decades. A federal Britain in a federal Europe - what's there not to like?...