House of Commons

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

Monday 21 March 2011

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What plans he has to allocate funds for the modernisation of primary schools in Halifax.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

On 13 December, we announced the 2011-12 capital allocations to cover a growing demand for pupil places, especially at primary school. We also announced a sum for maintenance. It is for local authorities to determine how capital is allocated for pupil places, and the James review on capital will report shortly, following which we can decide other allocations for schools, and for the years from 2012-13 to 2014-15.

[Mrs Riordan]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but may I ask him about a specific school in Halifax? Moorside primary school has been promised a new build, but under Government cuts the local community fears that the plans will be shelved. Will he confirm to the House if and when that will happen, as the school desperately needs modernisation?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making the case for that primary school. Sadly, the state of the school estate that we inherited from the previous Government was such that many schools, particularly primary schools, require investment. We will consider every case sympathetically, and I hope that I or a member of my ministerial team will have an opportunity to talk to her to see what we can do to help in that particular case.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

3. What proposals he has to improve the quality of teaching of children with special educational needs.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

Our Green Paper on special educational needs and disability set out proposals to improve initial teacher training and continuing professional development so that leaders and teachers in schools and colleges are well equipped and confident to identify and overcome a range of barriers to learning and to intervene early when problems arise.

We will encourage schools to share expertise and learn from best practice and ensure sharp accountability for pupils’ outcomes.

[Anne Marie Morris]

Will the Minister look at how we can help young people with special educational needs make the transition into work, given that they are more than twice as likely as their peers to be not in education, employment or training?

[Sarah Teather]

Transition is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve with the Green Paper, and the reason for setting out an education, health and care plan from nought to 25. The focus is much more on outcomes, specifically to try to deal with transition, so that we start planning for independent life at a much earlier stage. The Green Paper sets out the direction of travel, and we hope to get input from across Government. I encourage people with a specific interest in the subject to respond to the Green Paper and give us their views on whether it meets young people’s needs and whether we should do more.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the concern in local authorities about the impact of the cuts to councils on their ability to provide central advisory teams for SEN? Does she realise the impact that that has in dramatically reducing SEN provision when schools do not buy back into those services?

[Sarah Teather]

We recognise that local authorities throughout the country are having to make difficult decisions, just as the Government are. However, money is not always well spent at the moment. For example, much money is wasted on the adversarial system, with parents unnecessarily going through tribunals. There is often a real push to get expensive independent provision that can be a drain on local authorities’ resources when, if we could get some of the necessary health care delivered earlier, parents would not necessarily push to go all the way to the expense of independent provision. A lot more can be done to spend the money that we have better.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the Green Paper, which is a wonderful document. However, may I draw her attention to Tourette’s, which appears to have been lumped in with many other developmental disorders, when it is specifically a neurological disorder? That perpetuates many of the concerns of people with Tourette’s about how society treats them.

[Sarah Teather]

The issue of Tourette’s and ensuring that we provide for children and young people with that condition is extremely important. If my hon. Friend has specific concerns about the way in which the Green Paper tackles it, I would be grateful if he wrote to me. I will ensure that that is taken into account as we move on.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

While I very much welcome the Green Paper and many of its aims and principles, especially proposals to improve teacher training, there is real concern across the sector that Ministers perhaps forgot to look out of their Whitehall windows to see what is happening on the ground now. Councils are laying off key SEN professionals, children’s centres are closing and disruptive reorganisations of our NHS and schools systems are making it harder, not easier, for local services to work together. Given all that, how confident is the Minister that the promises in the Green Paper can be delivered?

[Sarah Teather]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words of welcome for the Green Paper and recognise that she has spoken positively about it before. I hope all parties can work together, because on the whole, I have had helpful input on the Green Paper from Labour Members, just as I have had from Government Members.

As I just said in response to the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), we must recognise that, like the Government, all local authorities must make tough decisions, because of the state of the finances that were left by the previous Government. Nevertheless, the whole point of the Green Paper is to raise the bar to ensure that we have good quality provision right across the country. The pilots process will test how we deliver working together better, and I hope we will ensure such provision and raise standards everywhere.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

4. What his policy is on the future of devolved formula capital grant funding for (a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

We announced on 13 December 2010 the 2011-12 allocation of devolved formula capital money for primary and secondary schools, including academies. After the conclusion of the James review into capital spending, which will report shortly, I will decide on allocations for this programme for 2012-13 to 2014-15.

[Mr Umunna]

Research by the House of Commons Library shows that that funding which goes towards computers, building work and repairs, is due to fall by £26,000 per primary school and £86,000 per secondary school, which is on top of Building Schools for the Future cuts. That was first brought to my attention by heads of schools in my constituency. How does the Secretary of State expect to raise standards across the country when he is slashing funds to maintain the basic infrastructural fabric of our schools?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for the moderate way in which the hon. Gentleman couches his question. The sad truth is that the Government did not have the information available to know quite how dilapidated the schools estate that we inherited was, because in 2005 the previous Government abandoned any systematic collection of data about the state of schools. More than that, we inherited a situation in which the Office of Government Commerce had warned the previous Government that there was insufficient investment in additional pupil places. That is why we doubled the amount of capital spending on additional pupil places. As a result, we have had to make economies elsewhere, but we have prioritised where the previous Government failed to.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Many urban areas in the south-east, such as Reading, will shortly have enormous pressure on their primary and secondary school places. For planning purposes, it is important that they can look further ahead than 2012. What can my right hon. Friend do to assist local education authorities that are struggling, and under the most pressure, with additional pupil places?

[Michael Gove]

We have doubled the amount of money that local authorities have to spend on additional pupil places this year. The James review will give all local authorities a greater degree of confidence that every penny that is spent on pupil places can be spent more effectively and efficiently.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

5. What plans he has for single assessments and education, health and care plans for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

6. What support statemented children will receive under his proposals for the assessment of children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

The Green Paper announced that by 2014 we will replace special educational needs statements with a single assessment process and an education, health and care plan. The new plans will keep the same legal entitlements to provision as SEN statements and will build on statements with a commitment from all parties, including health and social care, to provide their services. We will be running pathfinders testing out the single assessment and plans from September.

[Dan Rogerson]

Families will welcome the progress towards a simpler, single assessment system. Will my hon. Friend reassure families and parents that their protection under the current statementing system will continue under a single process?

[Sarah Teather]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is indeed the case, but I hope that we will have an improved process, because all parties will come together to do the assessment, and then agree a plan and how to pay for it. I hope that that will improve the situation for families who have to move between one service and another to try to persuade someone to pay for something, such as speech and language therapy, which happens all too often.

[Penny Mordaunt]

The Green Paper promotes a more sparing use of statementing, which is broadly and widely welcomed, but does the Minister appreciate that a statement is sometimes the only clout a parent has in ensuring that their child’s needs are met? In the future, how will we ensure that parents still have that clout?

[Sarah Teather]

Nothing in the Green Paper discourages local authorities from statementing. For example, we have tried to make it clearer that local authorities ought to be providing the same protection for under-fives. However, many children and young people will have a need below the level that we would expect to be provided for by a statement. Schools still have a requirement to do their best to serve those children, and I hope that our work on teacher training will improve that support. There is also the work listed in the Green Paper through which we want to provide a local offer, so that it is much clearer for families what should normally be available, and so that the process is less combative for parents trying to get help. I hope that that will support families who have a child with a special educational need or disability, regardless of whether it reaches the level of a statement.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recall that a review of these issues just a few years ago identified the issue of transition and concluded that we should address the problem of people leaving school and the educational system? That can be a traumatic experience. Is it still a focus?

[Sarah Teather]

Indeed. There is a whole section in the Green Paper on transition. As I said, the whole reason for changing to the education, health and care plan that runs up to the age of 25 is to focus much more on outcomes and to begin that planning process at an earlier stage. To make things better for young people, we need all Departments to work together. This is not just a matter of providing better educational opportunities. However, there is a lot in the Green Paper about what we want to do to improve the quality of provision, including, for example, in the further education sector and the quality of skills training there. This requires a whole-Government response. That is what we want, and the Green Paper is the first step towards it, but transition is an essential part of planning and one of the things that frightens parents the most about having a child with a special educational need.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

About 18 months ago, I had discussions and introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on this very issue. Will the Minister say what happens beyond the statements she expects to be made in September?

[Sarah Teather]

I am most terribly sorry, but I could not catch the hon. Gentleman’s question. Would it be in order for him to ask it again?

[Mr Cunningham]

Without going back over it all, will the Minister tell me what happens beyond the statements expected to be made in September from schools about what they are going to do about the medical situation of children?

[Sarah Teather]

I am most terribly sorry, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could write to me. I did not follow his question. If he writes to me, I will respond straight away.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Saxmundham primary school in my constituency has made remarkable adaptations in order to include the education of a child called Finlay. It might be useful for other schools to learn from that experience. I am particularly interested in his transition to secondary school.

[Sarah Teather]

While drawing up the Green Paper, we met people from schools with fantastic examples of good practice in working to help support young people moving from one stage to the next. We are grateful for all examples of good practice, and we want to encourage other schools to raise the bar. Some brilliant work has been done. For example, some schools have encouraged young people to set up their own enterprises and companies and in doing so given them real employment opportunities. I would be interested to hear more detail about the school in the hon. Lady’s constituency.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

7. What recent representations he has received on the English baccalaureate.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

10. What recent representations he has received on the English baccalaureate; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): We have received a number of representations on the English baccalaureate since it was announced. Public opinion surveys have shown that this new league table measure is widely welcomed, and on recent school visits, I have been encouraged by the vocal support that teachers and head teachers have shown for this new measure of achievement.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Has the Secretary of State seen the survey of 100 school teachers by the National Association of Music Educators and the National Society for Education in Art and Design that suggests that in 60% of schools that responded there has been a narrowing of the curriculum as a result of the introduction of the English baccalaureate? Would he consider adding a further subject to the suite of subjects in the English baccalaureate, so that it is not all about writing and what other people do, and to ensure that there is an opportunity for young people to do something practical and create or make things themselves, so that we do not reinforce the division between practical and academic learning?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very well made argument from the hon. Lady, and I sympathise with the case that she makes. It is important to appreciate that the English baccalaureate does not and need not take up the entire teaching time in any school day or week. The reason why it is constructed as it is, with just the five areas that we are familiar with, is to ensure time in the school week for other activities, such as art and design, music, physical education—everything that helps to build a truly rounded young person. There is no need to alter the English baccalaureate for schools to offer a truly rounded and stretching curriculum, and I would love to be able to work with her to ensure that the schools in her constituency appreciate that.

[Julian Smith]

Schools across Skipton and Ripon are delighted about the E-bac, but there is concern about religious education. Are there any plans in the near or medium term to review the decision to exclude RE from the E-bac?

[Michael Gove]

I know that a number of schools and hon. Members have pressed for additional subjects in the English baccalaureate, but the reason why religious education is not included is that it is a compulsory subject at all stages in the national curriculum to the age of 16. The reason why it is not included in the humanities section of the English baccalaureate is specifically so that we can drive up the take-up of history and geography, which are currently not compulsory after the age of 14.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Ofqual says that the Secretary of State has asked it to look at A-level and GCSE re-sits, including in the English bac subjects. We learnt this month that it took the accident-prone Secretary of State seven attempts to pass his driving test and that his car was badly damaged recently when he got it stuck in a car parking lift. If it is seven times for Gove, how many chances will mere mortals get to pass the bac?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for the assiduous attention that the hon. Gentleman pays to the written work that my wife contributes to The Times every week. I will give him eight out of 10 for practical criticism and nine out of 10 for creative writing in that question. The truth, however, is that, witty as he is—and he always is—I note that there was no intellectual assault on the principle of the English baccalaureate. Just five weeks ago, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), was denouncing the English baccalaureate; just two weeks ago, he was wearing a badge celebrating failure in the English baccalaureate. Now the hon. Gentleman wants us to help everyone pass the English baccalaureate. [Interruption.] I am afraid that his interventions from a sedentary position cannot hide the fact that when it comes to driving, there are two manoeuvres for which the Secretary of State—

[Kevin Brennan]

Shadow.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you. The two manoeuvres for which the shadow Secretary of State is preparing are: a U-turn on his academy position, which he has already executed, and now another U-turn, which I can sense him undertaking on the English baccalaureate. I celebrate the fact that he is manoeuvring out of the way of the criticism of those of us on this side of the House who believe in higher standards.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the English baccalaureate is not compulsory, that schools retain the right—indeed, the duty—to offer an appropriate curriculum to their pupils, and that schools such as university technical colleges will not be obliged to ensure that at least 80% of pupils’ time up to the age of 16 is spent on academic subjects?

[Michael Gove]

The Chairman of the Select Committee on Education has not only asked an excellent question but given a superb summary of the beneficial effects of the English baccalaureate and the flexibility inherent in the coalition’s education proposals.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

8. When he plans to announce his proposals for capital funding for schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I announced the capital allocations for schools for 2011-12 in December last year. The James review of capital funding is considering how we can get better value for money out of capital allocations in future years. When it reports shortly, we should be in a position to explain what capital allocations will be in place for all schools from 2012-13 onwards.

[Greg Mulholland]

The excellent Prince Henry’s grammar school in my constituency was failed for many years by the wasteful Building Schools for the Future programme, so I warmly welcome that capital funding. How will the Secretary of State ensure that it targets schools such as Prince Henry’s, which have a clear need to get their buildings up to scratch—that is, to a standard that he and I would wish for?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend presents a very passionate and well-informed case on behalf of his constituents on this occasion, as he does in every case. The truth is, sadly, that the situation we inherited meant that money did not go to the schools that were most dilapidated but to those schools that were favoured for political reasons by the last Government. For that reason, we shall ensure that any system of capital allocation in the future focuses explicitly on need.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will recall the correspondence and meetings that we have had about two schools in Coventry—President Kennedy and Woodlands—neither of which benefited politically in the way he suggests. Is there anything he can tell us today, or if not, could he write to me about those two well-deserving cases about which he and his Department are now so well briefed?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) for making the case for their schools. We know that there are schools in Coventry that are, frankly, in a terrible state and deserve support, and one reason I know that is that I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. What I do not have, I am afraid, is a detailed survey of the state of school buildings across the country, because such an exercise was abandoned by the last Government after 2005. For that reason, I am afraid, the Department for Education does not have adequate data about the state of our school estate. I am afraid it is the Ministers who were responsible for education under the last Government who are responsible for that terrible omission.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

What lessons does the Secretary of State think can be learned from Mrs Pauline McGowan, the head teacher of Woodton primary school in my constituency, who, told by county hall officials that she could not make the required changes to her building for less than £200,000, worked with local architects and builders and managed to achieve exactly what she wanted for the £70,000 of capital funding she had available—just 35% of what public procurement officials had said would be required?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very good point. The truth is that under the last Government the building regulations, the planning rules and the way in which capital was allocated under Building Schools for the Future was inherently wasteful. The people who lost out were those in constituencies—like that of my hon. Friend and that of the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson)—that were in desperate need of additional cash. Even though we have inherited a dreadful financial situation, we will ensure that every penny is spent more effectively in the same way as the admirable head teacher in my hon. Friend’s constituency has succeeded in doing.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s comments about the state of the school estate in comparison to what it was like after the Conservative Government in 1997 are nothing short of a disgrace. The reality is that this year the average secondary school has had its budget for maintenance and repairs cut from more than £105,000 to less than £20,000. The Secretary of State has spectacularly failed to stand up for our schools and our schoolchildren. Does that not fatally expose how vacuous his claims are to have found more resources for schools this year?

[Michael Gove]

That question was beautifully written, almost as though it had been carved in marble by a master mason. The truth is that no one on that side of the House can afford to clamber on to their high horse when it comes to school buildings. It was that side of the House that inherited a golden economic legacy and squandered it. It was that side of the House that betrayed a generation of young people by giving us a record deficit and a record debt. It was that side of the House that presided over a schools building programme that was reckless, profligate and inefficient. It was that side of the House that put political convenience and partisanship ahead of our young people. Frankly, even though the hon. Gentleman was not in the last Parliament, every time he comes to that Dispatch Box to talk about the state of our education system or school buildings, there is only one word we need to hear from him, and that word is sorry.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

9. What plans he has for the future of history teaching in schools; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

We believe that the teaching of British history is vital, and that is why we are reviewing the national curriculum in England. We will consider whether history should be a compulsory subject in the curriculum at each key stage, and if so, how the programmes of study should be revised.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Is the Minister aware that Ofsted has found a lack of chronological understanding of British history among many pupils? Will he tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that every child across the United Kingdom has a full understanding of the good and great traditions that have made our country what it is today?

[Mr Hayes]

There is no more robust or redoubtable advocate for our island story and the teaching of history than my hon. Friend. He is right that Ofsted has highlighted considerable weaknesses in how history is taught, and I can reassure him that, through the measures I have described, the Government will restore history to the heart of the school curriculum so that children learn that unless we can map the past we will not navigate the present or chart our way to the future.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

11. Whether all those whose bid to open a free school in September 2011 was successful have been notified of the outcome of their bid.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

We are delighted with the overwhelming response that have received from proposers wishing to set up free schools, and we are seeing no signs that the demand is subsiding. That is why we are introducing a new decision-making process for 2012. We have already notified all proposers who wish to open free schools in September 2011 of the outcome of their proposals, and the list of successful proposals is available on the Department’s website.

[Charlotte Leslie]

Constituents of mine who are members of the Oasis parents action group have been subjected to considerable angst because they have not been notified by the key bidders of the success or otherwise of their free school bid. They have been left very confused about the choices available for their children in September 2011. Will the Minister consider measures to ensure that that never happens again, and can he confirm that the Department is now working as fast and as strongly as it can on the only successful free school bid, from Bristol city council and local parents, to ensure that there is a school on the St Ursula’s site in September 2011?

[Mr Gibb]

I understand the concern felt by parents in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Our policy is to inform the lead proposers of the outcome of their proposals, and we expect them to inform all those involved. I assure my hon. Friend that we are actively engaged in discussions with all the parties involved with the aim of finding a solution in relation to the Bristol free school project. Indeed, the project’s lead official has been meeting and talking to officers from the city council.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Given that the Secretary of State seems to be unable to find money for schools that desperately need rebuilding, will the Minister tell us how much money his Government have promised or awarded to free schools?

[Mr Gibb]

We announced in December that the capital allocation for 2011-12 would be £800 million for basic need, £858 million for capital maintenance and £185 million for devolved capital, which amounts to £2 billion out of a £4.9 billion capital budget. The difference between those two figures covers the BSF commitments and an allocation for free schools.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

The proposed King’s Science Academy in Bradford—for which, miraculously, £10 million has been found—has described itself in its application as a “non-selective” school. Is the Secretary of State as surprised as I am that it has already started sifting applications for admission, and, according to its website, intends to use a “non-verbal reasoning test”?

[Mr Gibb]

I should be happy to take up that case. If my hon. Friend will write to me, I will respond immediately.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s free schools policy seems to be shrouded in secrecy, rather like the whereabouts of 500 ministerial responses to Members’ unanswered parliamentary questions. At a time when mainstream schools face severe cuts in their budgets, local areas must be able to judge whether free schools offer the best use of public money. The Minister failed to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), so I shall give him another go. Will he tell us how much money has been promised to free schools for 2010-11 and 2011-12, and where that money is coming from?

[Mr Gibb]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that £35 million has been allocated to free schools this year. We will be completely transparent about this. As soon as a free school opens, all the details of the funding agreement will be made public once all the figures relating to that school are known.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

12. Whether he plans to review the eligibility criteria for free school meals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

Under current arrangements, eligibility for free school meals is focused on children in non-working families to ensure that those who are most in need receive that valuable help. Universal credit will replace existing benefits, and the Department is working with the Department for Work and Pensions to develop new free school meal eligibility criteria. We will also consider free school meal eligibility in 2012, in the light of the evaluation of the current pilot schemes relating to extended eligibility.

[Andrew Bridgen]

When I have visited schools in the more deprived parts of my constituency, it has been apparent that many parents are currently too proud to claim free school meals, feeling that a stigma is attached to them. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the free school meal criteria will be reviewed regularly, and that efforts will be made to inform parents of the importance of registering for them, given that the pupil premium is allocated according to free school meal take-up rather than eligibility?

[Tim Loughton]

I believe that 7,490 pupils under 16 in maintained schools in my hon. Friend’s area are eligible for free school meals. That is about half the national take-up. It is important for the pupil premium to be available to those in the most deprived areas, and we will of course monitor the situation to ensure that a perception of stigma does not prevent people from registering.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that the Liberal-led coalition at Northumberland county council is talking about taking hot meals away from all children in Northumberland? If he is, what is he going to do about it?

[Tim Loughton]

I am not aware of what Northumberland county council may be intending to do, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to the Department I am sure we can look into it. I hope he will acknowledge that the additional money that will come into his area for the most deprived children through the pupil premium will provide considerable help to those children who might not be getting a hot meal at home.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

13. What steps he is taking to enable schools to determine their own curriculum.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Academies have total freedom to determine their own curriculum and our review of the national curriculum will ensure that more schools have flexibility over how they teach.

[Mr Carswell]

I welcome the proposals to relax curriculum requirements. It is vital to allow schools to innovate, but is there not a danger of some unwelcome innovations, such as the thematic curriculum approach that did much to damage Bishops Park school in my constituency? Will Ministers therefore make certain that schools are downwardly accountable to local mums and dads for what and how they teach to ensure that we have a creative approach to curriculum innovation rather than a kooky one?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the case he makes. I know that the school he mentions had to be closed under the previous Government because it was not responding to what local parents wanted and was not providing a high enough quality of education. The coalition Government are ensuring that there are measures in place—floor standards—to ensure that if any school falls below a particular level at GCSE performance, we will not be afraid to intervene to ensure that all parents have a guarantee that standards are maintained. We will also publish more data in weeks to come on how schools perform so that there can be that accountability, direct to parents, for what their children are taught.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to support the teaching of design in schools.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

We have been funding the Design and Technology Association to provide continuing professional development for design and technology teachers to enhance their subject knowledge, and we intend to continue to provide this funding while we are reviewing the position of the subject in the national curriculum.

[Chris White]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am sure that everyone recognises the need to build a more creative and innovative economy and the important role that teaching design and technology must play in that. Will he assure the House that the Government will continue to promote the teaching of design and technology within schools and inform us of any steps being taken to meet that end?

[Mr Hayes]

The white heat of technology has never been more important. Britain’s future chance of success lies in our being a high-tech, high-skilled nation, which is why the Government have agreed an unprecedented level of commitment and expenditure for apprenticeships, which are being taught in many schools. We will continue to build that high-tech, high-skilled nation. I recommend our strategy to my hon. Friend—signed copies are available.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

15. What recent progress has been made by schools in Chatham and Aylesford constituency which are converting to academy status.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The Department has received three applications to convert to academy status from schools in the Chatham and Aylesford constituency. Of the three schools that have applied to convert, two have received academy orders and the Secretary of State will consider the third application for an academy order very soon.

[Tracey Crouch]

The Minister will be aware that several schools across my constituency are keen to explore the possibility of becoming partnership academies. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the schools to discuss the viability and future progress of these exciting proposals?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and a delegation. Officials met officers at Medway council on Thursday and discussed proposals made by five of the schools in Medway. Officials propose to hold follow-up discussions with the five schools either individually or as a group. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and discussing this matter.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

16. What his policy is on the provision of sporting facilities in schools.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

It is for schools and their sponsors and maintaining authorities to determine the range of sporting facilities in each school, consistent with statutory requirements. Education premises regulations include a requirement for access to playing fields as well.

[Mr Spencer]

I am grateful for that answer. Will the Minister tell me how he will support schools and governing bodies when local authorities withdraw from joint-use agreements, putting pressure on sporting facilities and their availability to not only pupils but members of the public?

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is right to say that it is absolutely essential that we have as many school facilities available as possible to people beyond those in the school cohort. Local authorities should remember that they have responsibility for determining non-school provision at a school site. Given that PE will remain a compulsory part of the curriculum, they really should be reminded of their duties, and of the fact that it is good for everybody to do more sport.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

17. What steps he is taking to improve the quality of teaching in schools.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The single most important determinant of a good education for every child is having good teachers, which is why we have set out plans to raise the professional status and standards of the teaching profession in the White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”. We will focus on recruiting the best candidates to become teachers. We will improve their training and give them more opportunities to learn from high performers in the profession.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Minister for that answer. A YouGov survey found that for undergraduates the No. 1 deterrent to becoming a teacher is violence in the classroom; that is being compounded by fear of false and malicious allegations. What steps are the Government taking to protect the physical and reputational integrity of teachers, so that a career in the classroom attracts the best and the brightest talent?

[Mr Gibb]

Of course, my hon. Friend is right: violence in schools is completely unacceptable. The Education Bill, now in Committee, includes a wide range of reforms to increase teachers’ ability to challenge poor behaviour. It introduces reporting restrictions, giving anonymity to teachers when allegations are made by or on behalf of a pupil. The reforms are intended to shift the balance of authority back to the teachers and head teachers in our schools, to enable them to provide a safe environment in schools where children are free and able to learn.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I am sure that Ministers will agree that the quality of teaching in schools is enhanced by the work of Saltmine, a fantastic charity based in my constituency that puts on plays for secondary school children to educate them about issues such as alcohol, drugs, racism and bullying. Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to come and see one of these fantastic plays, and does he agree that despite the difficult decisions that schools have to make, reducing expenditure in that area would be very short-sighted indeed?

[Mr Gibb]

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants me to ask the Secretary of State to come along, and does not ask me to come along instead. I would be delighted to visit a school to see that work in action. The issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions are very important, and unless we get them right children will not be in the right place to access the curriculum and learn successfully.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am concerned that some schools in South West Norfolk are struggling to recruit teachers in short-supply subjects and head teachers. Will the Minister consider improving the quality of teaching in Norfolk by rolling out Teach First to the county, and by relaxing rules on national pay bargaining to allow us to recruit teachers in those short-supply schools?

[Mr Gibb]

I appreciate the recruitment difficulties experienced in west Norfolk, and I am encouraged by the work being undertaken by Norfolk county council, supported by the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services, to develop local solutions to meet the demand for head teachers. On pay, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that a further remit will be issued to the School Teachers Review Body later this year, asking for recommendations on how the pay and conditions system can be made less rigid. That work will build on the current extensive flexibilities, which will allow schools to pay, attract and retain teachers.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

18. What assessment he has made of the effects of reductions in local authority funding for education on the provision of information, advice and guidance for students at secondary level in Blackpool.

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

We want to be helpful to local authorities and schools by giving them information on the changes taking place to careers guidance and the time scale for change. To that end, we will make an announcement shortly regarding the Government’s approach to careers advice and guidance.

[Mr Marsden]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he not realise that as a result of the Government’s cuts the Connexions service in Blackpool, and up and down the country, is already being shredded? Does he not realise that that needs to be addressed if he wishes to give emphasis to the policies he is proposing? Otherwise, when he has his new, all-age careers service, there will not be much of Connexions left for it to connect to.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman knows that local authorities will retain their statutory duty for all but careers, and the all-age service will make an immense difference in social mobility. It will give people a chance to fulfil their potential and be the best they can be. I do not want to be excessively critical, but I have to say that in many cases Connexions just did not do that adequately.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

19. Whether children in care will automatically be eligible for funding through the scheme to replace education maintenance allowance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

We are considering the arrangements for the new funding and what assurances might be given to particular groups of young people who might be facing barriers to participation. We will announce details of the new scheme shortly.

[David Wright]

We as a community have a collective responsibility for children in care, and it is crucial that they should have access to funding as a replacement for EMA. Will the Minister assure the House that he will really focus on that important group for which we have a collective responsibility?

[Tim Loughton]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that children in care have been a particular interest of mine and that we are doing an awful lot to try to improve on the scandal of the poor outcomes they have experienced for too long. They will be at the head of the queue when it comes to the alternative arrangements for EMA, recognising the disadvantaged position in which most of the children in the care system find themselves, and we need to do everything we can to help them to catch up.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I am delighted to be able to tell the House that the number of academies in the state education system has now reached 465, which is more than double the 203 that we inherited from the previous Government. Since the scheme for schools to convert was opened in September last year, 195 schools have converted. In the first three years of the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997 during which grant maintained status was available, only 50 schools converted, so the rate of academy conversion, and indeed the rate of school reform we are presiding over, is the fastest ever.

[Diana Johnson]

Hull’s cut of £70 per child in children’s services means that 13 of the 20 children’s centres in Hull will effectively have to be mothballed and staffed only by a receptionist and a cleaner. I am sure that the Secretary of State will recall “Yes Minister” and Jim Hacker’s visit to a hospital that had no patients. Would he like to visit the children’s centres in my constituency that have no children?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, and I am always grateful for the opportunity to visit the East Riding—

[Diana Johnson]

Hull is not in the East Riding.

[Michael Gove]

Well, historically it is.

[Diana Johnson]

It is not now.

[Michael Gove]

Moving beyond history and geography, let me address this specific point. The amount of money available in the early intervention grant to ensure that children’s centres can stay open is higher than she implies, and sufficient to ensure that all local authorities can discharge their statutory responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient places.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

T4. Montacute special school in my constituency is in desperate need of new facilities. It was quite reasonably removed from the Building Schools for the Future list as the plans for a rebuild were not satisfactory at that stage. Would the Secretary of State or his officials be prepared to meet me either at the school or here in London to discuss a way forward?

[Michael Gove]

I shall specifically ask whether an official from Partnerships for Schools can visit the hon. Lady’s constituency, at a time that is convenient to her and to the staff of the school, in order to see what can be done.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

We found out last week that Education Ministers were the worst in Whitehall at answering parliamentary questions, with 496 questions unanswered. Given some of the non-replies we have heard today, they might well have just hit the 500 mark, so let me give the Secretary of State an easy one. We read last week that the Government’s advocate for access to education, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), is negotiating with the Chancellor ahead of the Budget to secure more money for the replacement for education maintenance allowance. Assuming that the Secretary of State has been kept informed of those discussions, would he care to give the House an update on progress?

[Michael Gove]

We are progressing very well in dealing with the problems that we were left by the previous Government, handling the deficit in our budget and the deficit in the number of students staying on after 16. I am pleased to say that we have already succeeded in securing more money for students after the age of 16, including £150 million more to help the most disadvantaged students who are staying on after 16. Participation is increasing, and we have managed to keep the number of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training—NEETs—to an acceptably low level in this time of difficult economic news. We have done all this even though we were bequeathed a drastic fiscal situation by the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a part.

[Andy Burnham]

After that reply, I make the running total 501. More money for students after the age of 16? I should be interested to know how the Secretary of State would back up that claim. The truth is that he is repeating tired old lines, which were blown apart last week by a letter from nine leading economists to The Guardian, in which they said that

“the EMA…is not a deadweight loss as the government claims…The argument that there is no alternative to scrapping EMA is false.”

With youth unemployment at record levels, with fear rising of a lost generation, will the Secretary of State admit that he was wrong on EMA? Will he perform another of his famous U-turns and keep his party’s promises to young people?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but he should pay attention. It was pointed out at the time of the comprehensive spending review that we were spending more money on post-16 education. It is interesting that he should mention letters to The Guardian, because the one to which he refers was concocted by nine Labour-supporting economists as part of the save the EMA campaign, which is fronted by a Labour researcher, and is nothing more than a party political exercise.

If we are talking about letters to The Guardian, I recently read one from Professor Alison Wolf, who conducted a review of vocational education. She pointed out two things: first, hundreds of thousands of children were betrayed by the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, because they were forced to take inadequate vocational qualifications. She also pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman was—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State will resume his seat. This is not a debate—it is topical questions. I want brief questions and brief answers.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

T5. On Thursday, I saw the beginning of construction for Strood academy in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State appreciate the extent to which confirmation of that investment is appreciated in the local community, and would he visit my constituency to open the academy when construction is completed next year?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I should be delighted to accept his generous invitation.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

T2. Laurence Jackson school in Guisborough is in the top 100 schools for sustained improvement at GCSE level, but, like Kilton Thorpe special school, its Building Schools for the Future budget has been cut, as has its harnessing technology grant, its extended schools grant, its gaining ground grant, its sports specialism funding, and its devolved capital funding grant. Have not Laurence Jackson and Kilton Thorpe school funds been redistributed to ideological free schools?

[Michael Gove]

Once again, that was a beautifully scripted and delightfully read question from a Labour Back Bencher. There is only one word that we need to hear from Labour politicians about cuts, which is “sorry” for the economic mess they bequeathed us. It is monstrous hypocrisy and intellectually inadequate to prate about cuts when the Government they supported were responsible for them.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

T7. I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that the cost of travel to and from a place of study may be a gating factor for disadvantaged students in accessing education. Will he take into account the cost of travel when formulating the enhanced discretionary learner support fund?

[Michael Gove]

Yes.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

T3. There are many Members in the House, including me, who believe that religious education provides an important moral platform for life. There is a feeling, however, that the Secretary of State has downgraded religious education in our schools. Will he get up and confirm that he has not done so?

[Michael Gove]

I do not know where that feeling comes from. Speaking as someone who is happy to be a regular attender at Church of England services, and whose own children attend a Church of England school, I recommend that the hon. Gentleman read the recent article that I penned for The Catholic Herald, a newspaper that is now required reading in the Department for Education. The article makes clear my commitment to faith schools of every stripe.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T8. Head teachers in my constituency have told me of their frustration at not being able to move teachers on who are not performing well enough, either to new responsibilities or, sadly, if necessary, out of the profession. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give me that he will take speedy action to ensure that pupils, parents and teachers get the best out of education?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Only two weeks ago, we introduced a new review of teaching standards to achieve a sharper focus on the quality of teaching in all our classrooms, and to ensure that teachers who fall below those standards are moved on. They should be helped to improve or, if necessary, helped to leave the profession.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. Sixth form colleges currently receive entitlement funding through the Young People’s Learning Agency. Colleges in my area face a 74% reduction in such funding, which they use to fund pastoral support, careers advice, sport, music, trips and visits—all the things that can fire aspiration and the imagination of young people. Will the Minister look at that again and meet me and someone from my local college, as I do not think Ministers quite realise the impact of their decision in this area?

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

In short, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his representatives. He knows, as does the whole House, that I am a champion for sixth form colleges and FE colleges, and I would be happy to make that clearer when we meet.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

T9. Has my right hon. Friend read the OECD’s latest report on the state of the UK education system? It says that “educational performance remains static, uneven and strongly related to parents’ income and background”and:“Despite sharply rising school spending per pupil during the last ten years, improvements in schooling outcomes have been limited in the United Kingdom.”Is that not a sad indictment of the past 13 years of Labour?

[Michael Gove]

I read the OECD report with a mounting sense of sadness. It made the case forcefully by the deployment of facts and argument in a remorseless fashion that under the previous Government, for all the welcome additional spending on schools, standards had not risen to anything like the expected level. It was also striking that that report endorsed the case for the coalition’s commitment to spending more on the disadvantaged, the coalition’s commitment to creating free schools, and the coalition’s commitment to overhauling the league table system. For a respected international institution to give such a resounding thumbs-down to the previous Government and thumbs-up to the coalition Government is—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State has got to get used to providing much punchier replies.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread concern that his national curriculum review might result in the removal of citizenship education from the core curriculum? Will he reassure the House that the Government remain committed to citizenship education in schools?

[Michael Gove]

Citizenship runs through everything we do at the Department for Education.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern of some parents about the inappropriate material being shown to their five-year-old and seven-year-old children under the guise of sex and relationship education? Will he take steps to start a licensing regime to ensure that the material being shown is age-appropriate?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I share some of my hon. Friend’s concerns and I know that she has written to the Secretary of State on the matter. She will be aware that we are currently reviewing personal, social and health education, of which sex and relationship education is a key part. It is crucial that whatever we do should be age appropriate. I would welcome her further input into the review as it proceeds.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the future of buildings at Mowden Hall in Darlington? The local council, residents and a property developer have an alternative site that will save money and create jobs. It will require quick decisions and innovative thinking. Is he up for it?

[Michael Gove]

I am always up for innovative thinking, and always up for a meeting with the hon. Lady. I take the point about Mowden Hall. I had the opportunity to visit it a few months ago—the first Secretary of State to do so, I think, since David Blunkett. I would be happy to discuss with her how we can help her constituents.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

With my right hon. Friend’s encyclopaedic knowledge of schools in this country, he is no doubt aware that Haslington primary school in my constituency, under the headship of Jenny Fitzhugh, has moved from special measures to a school with many outstanding features in just over one year. Will he join me in congratulating that school and reassure similar schools that the new inspection regime will ensure that those that progress such as Haslington are able to demonstrate that in the future?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely will. I place on record my congratulations to Jenny Fitzhugh on her outstanding leadership of that school. Any new arrangements that Ofsted put in place, which we are consulting on at present, will provide an opportunity for her to demonstrate her excellent work once again to more schools.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Estimates from the House of Commons Library show that Liverpool council will receive a real per capita decrease of £80 per child for services such as Sure Start from 2012-13. How can Ministers claim to have protected Sure Start funding?

[Michael Gove]

The reason we make that claim is that we have, as I mentioned in reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), ensured that the amount in the early intervention grant that goes to Sure Start children’s centres is sufficient to guarantee every child a high-quality place. I look forward to discussing these issues in greater detail with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), because we have a date this time next week.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

At a meeting last Friday at the Grove school in Hastings, I learnt that a whopping 48% of its new intake are on free school meals. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that sufficient funds will be available through the pupil premium to support disadvantaged students, such as those in my constituency, through their education?

[Michael Gove]

The number of students eligible for free school meals in that school is three times the national average, and I will ensure that the pupil premium provides them with the support they need to do just as well as students from more privileged backgrounds.

Point of Order

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

15:30

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We know that military intervention has started without the House being able to debate or vote on the issue. On 10 March the Leader of the House was asked during business questions by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) whether the House could definitely have a vote before any military action was taken if a no-fly zone was to be imposed. The Leader of the House said yes, that that is now the convention and that it was the Government’s intention to

“observe that convention except when there is an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 1066.]

I say to you, Sir, that the vote on military action in Iraq was on 18 March 2003, and that action took place two days later. If the House could not meet to discuss this on Friday, was it not possible for us to meet on Saturday? The convention whereby the House debates military action before such action takes place has not been followed.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Having first entered the House in 1966, he will know that the arrangement of business is a matter for the Government, not the Chair. He has made an important point and it is on the record. If he catches the eye of the Chair, he will have an opportunity to develop that point among others later in the afternoon.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment. The House might be interested to know that no fewer than 62 right hon. and hon. Members have applied to speak, as a result of which a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions has been imposed. I appeal to Members, today in particular, not to approach the Chair to inquire where they are on the list. The Chair will do his or her best to accommodate Members in the course of the afternoon, but it will not be assisted by people toddling up and making inquiries. Interventions are the stuff of debate, but Members should be aware that a lot of interventions will impact on debate and that those who make many will necessarily fall down the list.

15:33

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1973; deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime; acknowledges the demonstrable need, regional support and clear legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya; accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government, working with others, in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya and to enforce the No Fly Zone, including the use of UK armed forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; and offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty’s armed forces.

On Saturday, British forces went into action over Libya. The first British cruise missiles were fired from HMS Triumph at 7 pm. Subsequently, RAF Tornados were deployed in several missions. This marked the beginning of our involvement in an international operation, working with the US and others at the request of Arab nations to enforce the will of the United Nations.

In line with UN resolution 1973, there were two aims to these strikes. The first was to suppress the Libyan air defences and make possible the safe enforcement of a no-fly zone. The second was to protect civilians from attack by the Gaddafi regime. Good progress has been made on both fronts. I can announce to the House today that coalition forces have largely neutralised Libyan air defences and that, as a result, a no-fly zone has effectively been put in place over Libya. It is also clear that coalition forces have helped to avert what could have been a bloody massacre in Benghazi. In my view, they did so just in the nick of time.

Today, I can confirm that RAF Typhoon jets have been deployed to a military base in southern Italy within 25 minutes flying time of the Libyan coast, and two Typhoons will be helping to patrol the no-fly zone this afternoon.

I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to our servicemen and women, who are performing with their usual professionalism and courage. Our thoughts must be with their families and their loved ones at this time, as they risk their lives to help save the lives of others.

Let me be clear why these actions have been taken. On Friday evening, President Obama, President Sarkozy and I spelt out the non-negotiable conditions that Colonel Gaddafi had to meet under the requirements of international law set out by UN Security Council resolution 1973.

First, we said that a ceasefire had to be implemented immediately, and that all attacks against civilians must stop. Secondly, we said that Gaddafi had to stop his troops advancing on Benghazi. Thirdly, we said that Gaddafi had to pull his forces back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah. He had to establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas, and he had to allow humanitarian assistance to reach the people of Libya.

The removal of Gaddafi’s forces from those towns would safeguard civilians, enable the aid agencies to operate there safely and guarantee the humanitarian assistance that the UN resolution demands. So, let me be clear: the Government’s view is that those non-negotiable conditions are entirely consistent with implementing the UN resolution.

Gaddafi responded to the United Nations resolution by declaring a ceasefire, but straight away it was clear that he was breaking that promise. He continued to push his tanks towards Benghazi as quickly as possible, and to escalate his actions against Misrata. On Saturday alone, there were reports of dozens of people killed in Benghazi and dozens more in Misrata. Gaddafi lied to the international community, he continued to brutalise his own people and he was in flagrant breach of the UN resolution, so it was necessary, legal and right that he should be stopped, and that we should help stop him.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for allowing an intervention. A great many people in this House and in the country had difficulty supporting previous international operations, because they did not have the backing of the United Nations, but this case is different as it does have the backing of the United Nations. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the importance of a broad consensus on this issue, and, in doing that, the need to stick to the terms of the UN resolution and to address concerns about an open-ended commitment and the potential for mission creep?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly want to build and maintain, in this House, throughout this country and, indeed right across the world, the widest possible coalition for the action that we are taking. We must work hard to make sure that many, many countries, including many Arab countries, continue to back what we are doing.

The UN Security Council resolution is very clear about the fact that we are able to take action, including military action, to put in place a no-fly zone that prevents air attacks on Libyan people, and to take all necessary measures to stop the attacks on civilians. We must be clear what our role is, and our role is to enforce that UN Security Council resolution. Many people will ask questions—I am sure, today—about regime change, Gaddafi and the rest of it. I have been clear: I think Libya needs to get rid of Gaddafi. But, in the end, we are responsible for trying to enforce that Security Council resolution; the Libyans must choose their own future.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Joan Ruddock]

I am very grateful to the Prime Minister. He will know that, at the moment, the military action is entirely by western states, and that interpretation of the resolution is everything. Will he ensure that, even if its forces are not deployed, the Arab League will be drawn properly into the strategic decision making?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the right hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I spoke to the secretary-general of the Arab League this morning. One of the things we want to do is to set up a coalition meeting, which happens regularly, for all parties to the mission to come together at a political level and help to give it leadership and guidance. She is right that Arab planes have not been involved in the mission so far, but, as I shall come on to later, the Qataris are producing a number of jets to help enforce the no-fly zone, and we will be doing everything we can to encourage others to come forward. As she knows and I am sure the House will appreciate, what happened on Friday and Saturday was a growing urgency, where action needed to be taken at once. It was vital that we did take that action at once, and, as a result, it was predominantly US, French and British forces that were involved in it.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then make some progress.

[Tony Lloyd]

I think the Prime Minister carries the overwhelming majority on the urgent need to take action to prevent the massacre of people in Benghazi, but will he take the opportunity during his speech to spell out exactly what are the limitations of the actions that he and the coalition will pursue?

[The Prime Minister]

The action will be limited by what the UN Security Council resolution says. As far as I am concerned, there are two absolutely clear bases for action—one is necessary measures to put in place a no-fly zone, and the second is necessary measures to prevent the deaths of civilians. In everything we do, we must be guided by clear legal advice underneath that UN Security Council resolution. I urge all hon. Members to read the resolution in full, because it gives a pretty clear explanation of what we can do, and we must act within both the letter and the spirit of that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will take a few more interventions—first, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell).

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

In view of the obviously barbaric attacks by Gaddafi on his own people, does the Prime Minister agree that those officials and military chiefs who are still standing firm with Gaddafi stand every chance of being hauled before the war crimes tribunal?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The first resolution we passed—1970—specifically referred to the International Criminal Court. The message we should give today, very clearly, to those people still working or fighting for Gaddafi is that if you continue to do so, you could end up in front of the International Criminal Court, and now is the time to put down your weapons, walk away from your tanks, and stop obeying orders from this regime.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell]

The resolution says that all necessary measures will be taken. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that no land forces will ever be used; and if they are used, will he resign as Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

What I can guarantee is that we will stick to the terms of the UN resolution, which absolutely and specifically rules out an occupying force. We have to be clear: we are not talking about an invasion; we are not talking about an occupying force; we are talking about taking action to protect civilian life, and I think that is the right thing to do.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to take two more interventions before making progress, first from my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and then from the leader of Plaid Cymru.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Of course, no two campaigns are the same, but there are similarities between this campaign and that to protect the Kurdish people when Saddam Hussein turned on his own people and began to attack them. The motion before the House calls for all necessary measures to protect the people of Libya. Can the Prime Minister confirm that when we vote on the motion tonight, that does not mean regime change in Libya, because that is up to the Libyan people?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and he is right to draw attention to the issue of the no-fly zone that covered the Kurds. Indeed, at the meeting in Paris on Saturday the Iraqi Foreign Minister gave a passionate speech about how the no-fly zone had saved thousands of lives, and probably his own as well, and that is why it was the right step to take.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

May I say that I am very pleased that the Government have sought a UN resolution, thus making intervention lawful? From what the Prime Minister says, the no-fly zone is up and running. Can we therefore presume that there will be no aerial bombardment for the time being?

[The Prime Minister]

Certainly, the entire aim of the no-fly zone is to stop the attacks from the air by Gaddafi on his own people, but where the UN has had such a success here is that the resolution goes so much further than simply a no-fly zone because it talks about not only all necessary measures for a no-fly zone, but all necessary measures to protect the civilian population. That enables the international community to take quite tough, but absolutely necessary, steps—for instance, to stop those tanks going into Benghazi. We need to pay tribute to our military and what they are going to have to do over coming days to protect people—an absolutely vital part of what we are engaged in.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

rose—

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to make some progress, and then I will take more interventions later.

This action was necessary because, with others, we should be trying to prevent this dictator from using military violence against his own people; it was legal because, as we have just discussed, it had the backing of the UN Security Council; and it was right, I believe, because we should not stand aside while he murders his own people—and the Arab League and many others agreed. In the summit in Paris on Saturday, the secretary-general of the Arab League and representatives of Arab states, including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Jordan and Morocco, asserted their support for

“all necessary action, including military, consistent with UNSCR 1973, to ensure compliance with all its requirements.”

That is what was agreed in Paris.

As I have said, in terms of active participation, the Qataris are deploying a number of jets from their royal air force to help enforce the no-fly zone. I spoke to the secretary-general of the Arab League this morning, and he confirmed his clear support for all aspects of the UN resolution. We agree that it must be implemented.

Alongside America, France and Britain, a significant number of other countries are pledging their active support. I am sure that the House would want to hear some of the details. Spain has confirmed its active participation with four air defence fighters, a tanker aircraft, a surveillance aircraft and an F-100 frigate. Canada has committed six air defence fighters and a naval vessel. Norway and Denmark have committed a total of 10 air defence fighters. Belgium has offered air defence fighters. Italy has opened important bases in close reach of the Libyan coast, one of which we are using right now. Greece has excellent facilities and bases only minutes’ flying time from Benghazi.

The message in Paris was loud and clear: the international community had heeded the call of the Arab nations. Together, we assured the Libyan people of our

“determination to be at their side to help them realise their aspirations and build their future and institutions within a democratic framework.”

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Prime Minister will be aware that the Chinese Government have called for a special meeting of the Security Council this evening, and that India has expressed deep reservations about the bombardments that are going on. Can he tell us something about the apparent continuing falling away of support for the actions that have been taken, and what the endgame actually is?

[The Prime Minister]

The point that I would make is that this matter was discussed in the UN Security Council and the Chinese, Indians and Russians decided to abstain. Two of those countries have a veto and decided not to exercise it. Everyone was clear at the time about what was meant by enforcing a no-fly zone and taking all necessary measures to protect civilians. I will come on in my speech to describe how I believe what has happened is in no way disproportionate or unreasonable. Indeed, I would argue that it is absolutely in line with what the UN has agreed.

I will address specifically the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I know that it has not been selected, but I want to ensure that we address everything in this debate. There is much in the amendment that I welcome. I assure the House that we will do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties. Indeed, last night our RAF pilots aborted their mission when they determined that there were civilians close to the identified military targets. I also agree with the hon. Members who signed the amendment about the need to avoid the use of depleted uranium and cluster munitions. We do not use those munitions. I welcome their support for those struggling for democracy and freedom in the region, and back their call to restart the middle east peace process.

However, I take issue with two crucial parts of the amendment. The first is the suggestion that there was somehow time for further consultation before undertaking military action. The United Nations gave Gaddafi an ultimatum and he completely ignored it. To those who say that we should wait and see, I say that we have waited and we have seen more than enough. The House is aware that the Cabinet met and agreed our approach on Friday. On Saturday morning, as I was travelling to the Paris summit, the Deputy Prime Minister chaired a meeting of Cobra. He was presented with a final analysis of the state of play on the ground in Libya and the advice was very clear. We were in a race against time to avoid the slaughter of civilians in Benghazi. All of us would have hoped to avoid the use of force, and that could have been achieved if Gaddafi had complied immediately and fully with the requirements of the resolution. The fact is that he did not. That left us with a choice either to use force, strictly in line with the resolution, or to back down and send a message to Gaddafi that he could go on brutalising his people. We should remember that this is the man who told the world that he would show the people of Benghazi no mercy. I am convinced that to act with others was the right decision.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I give way to the other author of the amendment.

[John McDonnell]

I almost thought that the Prime Minister was about to support our amendment in total, but I live in hope on other matters. He made the specific point about avoiding the use of depleted uranium ordnance. Will he give a more categorical assurance that we will not use those weapons?

[The Prime Minister]

I could not have been more clear that we do not use those weapons and are not going to use those weapons.

Let me be clear with the hon. Gentleman about why, specifically, I do not agree with the amendment. My second objection is that it says we should “acknowledge” rather than “support” UN Security Council resolution 1973. I think that is profoundly wrong. It is an important resolution that the UK helped to bring about, and I believe that the House should be frank and clear in welcoming it.

[Emily Thornberry]

What would be a successful outcome to this military action, and is it possible that it could take a number of years for us to get out of Libya now?

[The Prime Minister]

A successful outcome is the enforcement of the will of the UN, which is the ceasing of attacks on civilians. That is what we are aiming at. But let me be absolutely frank about this: it is a more difficult question, in many ways, than the question over Iraq, because in Iraq we had been prepared to go into a country, knock over its Government and put something else in place. That is not the approach we are taking here. We are saying that there is a UN Security Council resolution to stop violence against civilians and to put in a UN no-fly zone, and then the Libyan people must choose their own future. The point I would make is that they have far more chance of choosing their own future today than they did 24 or 48 hours ago.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way.

Given our poor record of intervention in the past, can my right hon. Friend explain to the sceptics among us why we do not allow the Arabs to take the lead on this, particularly the Arab League, which has called for intervention, and let them instigate a no-fly zone? After all, Egypt is well placed, and we have been selling these Arab nations the capability.

[The Prime Minister]

I would answer that question in two ways. First, if we had waited for that, Benghazi would have fallen, and from that Tobruk would probably have fallen, and Gaddafi would have rolled up the whole of his country in the next 24 to 48 hours. The fact is, it was the Arab League that asked us to come in and provide the no-fly zone. I am as keen as anyone to make sure that this coalition of the willing is as broad-based, and has as much Arab support, as possible, but we should be clear that in the early stages, in order to act quickly, it had to have very strong American, British and French participation.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), and then I will make some more progress.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend knows that I am strongly supportive of the actions that he has taken, and he deserves great credit for them, but on Friday he indicated that we would see a summary of the legal advice from the Attorney-General. We know from what he said on Friday, and indeed from the note that has been supplied in the Library, that the Cabinet has consulted the Attorney-General and is satisfied with the legal advice, but it does not seem from what I have seen so far that we have been supplied with a summary of the Attorney-General’s legal advice. Is that going to be forthcoming?

[The Prime Minister]

What we have provided, which I do not think any Government have done before, is a note on the legal advice. That is, I think, the right thing to do. One of the reasons why it is so short is, frankly, because the legal advice is so clear. Members can see that when they read the UN Security Council resolution.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will take as many interventions as I can, but before I give way any more, let me turn to some of the other questions that have been raised in recent days.

First, as some hon. Members have asked today, has the use of force been reasonable? As I have said, we have undertaken the use of force in two ways. The first is to suppress Libyan air defences, which I believe is absolutely essential. As Prime Minister, I would not have been prepared to sanction our participation in enforcing the no-fly zone without doing everything possible to reduce the risk to our servicemen and women beforehand. That seems to me absolutely vital. The second area of activity has been action designed explicitly to safeguard civilian populations under attack. As the resolution explicitly authorises, it was quite clear that the population of Benghazi was under heavy attack. Civilians were being killed in significant numbers and exodus from the town had begun, so there was an urgent need to take action to stop the slaughter. As I have said, I am absolutely convinced that what has been done is proportionate.

Targets must be fully consistent with the UN Security Council resolution. We therefore choose our targets to stop attacks on civilians and to implement the no-fly zone, but we should not give a running commentary on targeting and I do not propose to say any more on the subject than that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I give way to the leader of the Green party.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister. I am sure he would agree that any military action needs to be principled and consistent, but last year, the UK issued £231 million-worth of arms exports licences to Libya and £55 million of licences to Saudi Arabia, including the very personnel carriers that were rolling into Bahrain just last week. Does he not agree that our position would be a lot more consistent and a lot more principled if we stopped selling arms to repressive regimes anywhere in that region?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, which we have discussed several times during statements and questions. We are having a proper review of not just arms exports, but training licences and other relations. Of the 118 single and open licences for Libya, we have revoked all licences that cover equipment of concern. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that there will be lessons to learn from the conflict for the future.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has been pressed to rule out putting any boots on the ground as part of the operation. May I ask him to reassure the House that, in the event of any British pilots being downed on operations over Libya, the UN resolution will not tie our hands and prevent us from putting in a robust search and rescue operation, should one be required to recover our pilots?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but the UN resolution could not be clearer about no occupying army—it is not about an invasion. People need that reassurance not only in the House but in the country and throughout the Arab world.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister should know that he has the support of the vast majority of Members of all parties for the Government’s actions and those of our troops, who are undertaking the work on our behalf. Does he agree that it is hard to see how the Libyan people will be safe from the threat of violence while Colonel Gaddafi remains in charge of that country?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman puts it absolutely correctly. We know what our job is—to enforce the UN’s will. It is for the people in Libya to decide who governs them, how they are governed and what their future is, but none of us has changed our opinion that there is no future for the people of Libya with Colonel Gaddafi in charge.

Obviously, there are those, including some in the House, who question whether Britain really needs to get involved. Some have argued that we should leave it to others because there is not sufficient British national interest at stake. I believe that argument is misplaced. If Gaddafi’s attacks on his own people succeed, Libya will become once again a pariah state, festering on Europe’s border, and a source of instability exporting terror beyond its borders. It will be a state from which literally hundreds of thousands of citizens could try to escape, putting huge pressure on us in Europe. We should also remember that Gaddafi is a dictator who has a track record of violence and support for terrorism against our country. The people of Lockerbie, for instance, know what that man is capable of. I am therefore clear that taking action in Libya with our partners is in our national interest.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The legal note that accompanies the debate makes it clear that the Security Council resolution recognises that Libya

“constitutes a threat to international peace and security.”

Although I do not recommend that we take such action, from the point of view of consistency, why are we not taking action against Yemen?

[The Prime Minister]

We are obviously extremely disturbed by what is happening in Yemen, particularly recent events. We urge every country in that region to respond to the aspirations of its people with reform, not repression. We have a specific situation in Libya, whereby there was a dictator whose people were trying to get rid of him, who responded with armed violence in the streets. The UN has reached a conclusion and I think that we should back it. As I said the other day, just because we cannot do the right thing everywhere does not mean we should not do it when we have clear permission for and a national interest in doing so. One commentator put it rather well at the weekend: “Why should I tidy my bedroom when the rest of the world is such a mess?” That is an interesting way of putting it.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

May I express from the Liberal Democrat Benches our strong support for the resolution and the Government’s action? Clearly, the position is different from Iraq. However, does the Prime Minister agree that there is an urgent need to internationalise the mission as far as possible to cement support across the international community should things not run entirely tidily and also so as not to over-extend our forces?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We want to internationalise the action to the maximum degree possible on the military front and in what must follow in humanitarian aid and assistance to the people in Libya.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Iraq and I want to deal with the way in which we will ensure that this is not another Iraq. My answer is clear: the UN resolution, which we, with the Lebanese, the US and the French, helped draft, makes it clear that there will be no foreign occupation of Libya. The resolution authorises and sets the limit on our action. It excludes an occupation force in any form on any part of Libyan territory.

However, I would argue that the differences from Iraq go deeper. It is not just that this time, the action has the full, unambiguous legal authority of the United Nations nor that it is backed by Arab countries and a broad international coalition, but that millions in the Arab world want to know that the UN, the US, the UK, the French and the international community care about their suffering and their oppression. The Arab world has asked us to act with it to stop the slaughter, and that is why we should answer that call.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to be clear who is intervening. I think it is the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard).

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

The legal advice summary, which I have only just seen—we have not seen the whole thing—clearly excludes

“a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”

but also says that the resolution

“further authorises Member States to use all measures…to carry out inspections aimed at the enforcement of the arms embargo”.

Does that mean that on the one hand we cannot have troops on the ground, but on the other hand we might allow people to make inspections or go there for search and rescue purposes? Is there clarity about having no troops on the ground in Libya?

[The Prime Minister]

The point about the legal advice, which refers back to the UN Security Council resolution, is that it makes provision to put in place an arms embargo and to inspect ships going to Libya. A number of countries have volunteered their forces specifically for that purpose, which we should welcome.

That brings me to my next point. Some accept that Britain should play a part but worry that we might shoulder an unfair burden. I want to assure the House that that is not the case. Let me explain how the coalition will work. It is operating under US command, with the intention that that will transfer to NATO, which will mean that all the NATO allies—I read out a list earlier of who wants to contribute—will be able to contribute. Clearly, the mission would benefit from that and from using NATO’s tried and tested command and control machinery.

With the fourth largest defence budget in the world, Britain clearly has the means to play its part, but given that British troops are engaged in Afghanistan, that part must be in line with our resources, and so it will be. No resources have been diverted from the Afghanistan campaign to carry out the enforcement of resolution 1973, and I have the assurance of the Chief of the Defence Staff that both operations can take place concurrently. Crucially, the impact of what we are doing in Libya will not affect our mission in Afghanistan.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will give way to my parliamentary neighbour.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on obtaining the UN resolution to give us the legal cover that we require? The problem with Iraq was that there was no proper post-war reconstruction plan. Is he giving thought to what a post-war reconstruction plan ought to be, and will he encourage members of the Arab League to play their full part in that once the military phase is over?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about humanitarian planning for afterwards, which I will come to later in my speech. My right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary is leading cross-Government work to ensure that that plan is robust. However, let me be frank about one difficulty that we have. Because we are saying that there will not be an invasion and that there will not be an occupation, we must have a different sort of plan—a much more international plan with a greater role for the UN, the EU and aid agencies, all of which we will support.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), but then make some progress.

[Mr Skinner]

It is easy to get into a war; it is much harder to end it. When will all those nations that are taking part know the circumstances for pulling out and ending the war? We know now that this is not about regime change—the Prime Minister has already said that—and we hope that there will be no forces on the ground, but what circumstances will enable those nations to say, “It’s all over”?

[The Prime Minister]

For once, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I entirely agree with the first part of his question, because it is easier to start these things than to finish them, and we should always be cautious and careful before we go ahead. However, as I have tried to lay out for the House today, not acting would have led to a completely unacceptable situation. The answer to his question is that this will be over and finished when we have complied with and implemented the UN Security Council resolution. That is about protecting civilians and protecting life, and giving the Libyan people a chance to determine their own future. This is different from Iraq. This is not going into a country and knocking over its Government, and then owning and being responsible for everything that happens subsequently. This is about protecting people and giving the Libyan people a chance to shape their own destiny.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

May I take the Prime Minister back to what he said about NATO? Is he confirming that when the US gives up command of this phase of the operation, he expects the UK, under the auspices of NATO, to take over?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that at the moment there is basically American command and control, under which the French, British and others are operating. Over time, we want that to transition to NATO command and control, using NATO machinery, so that all the partners in NATO and all those who want to contribute from the outside can be properly co-ordinated. That might easily still be an American, French or British individual, but it would be under the auspices of NATO. It is tried and tested, it works, it co-ordinates and brings people together, it has operated no-fly zones before, and it is the right way of doing things. The international community is agreed on that.

Of course, there are those who ask whether the risks will outweigh the benefits. Clearly, as I have said, there is no action without risk, but alongside the risks of action, we have to weigh the risks of inaction: the sight of the international community condemning violence but doing nothing to stop it; the effect across north Africa and the middle east if Gaddafi succeeds in brutalising his own people; the humanitarian consequences for the city of Benghazi and beyond; and the consequences for Europe of a failed pariah state on its southern border. In my view, all these risks are simply too great to ignore. So yes there are dangers and difficulties, and there will always be unforeseen consequences, but it is better to take this action than to risk the consequences of inaction, which would be the slaughter of civilians and this dictator completely flouting the United Nations and its will.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

In addition to brutalising his own people, is it not the case that the Gaddafi regime is daily harassing our brave British journalists, making it increasingly difficult for them to report from places such as Tripoli?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that everyone in the House would want to pay tribute to the risks taken by, and the bravery of, journalists, including British journalists. Everyone should remember that people reporting from Tripoli are doing so under very strong reporting restrictions. I hope that not only everyone in the House, but everyone in the country and broadcasting organisations will remember to repeat regularly the sort of restrictions the reporters are operating under.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will make some progress, and take a few more interventions before the end.

There are also some who say we are just stirring up trouble for the future. These people say that Arabs and Muslims cannot do democracy and that more freedoms in these countries will simply lead to extremism and intolerance. To me, this argument is not only deeply condescending and prejudiced, but is utterly wrong and has been shown to be wrong. Let us remember that people made this argument about Egypt only a short month ago. They said that the departure of Mubarak would lead to a dangerous vacuum in which extremists would flourish. Of course, I deplore—and the House will deplore—the attack on Mohamed e1-Baradei at a polling station, but the overwhelming picture from Saturday was one of millions of people queuing up patiently and proudly to exercise their democratic rights, many for the first time. As democrats in this House, we should applaud what they did.

Inevitably, information about the Libyan opposition is not complete, but the evidence suggests that it consists predominantly of ordinary Libyans from all walks of life who want freedom, justice and democracy—the things we take for granted.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Should the Gaddafi regime finally be toppled, will the Prime Minister assure us that his Government will do everything possible to help the Metropolitan police to conclude their investigations into who killed PC Yvonne Fletcher?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend, who has considerable expertise and has taken a great interest in this matter, makes an important point, which is that if the Libyan people choose a new future for themselves and their country, there might be huge opportunities to find out not only what really happened to PC Yvonne Fletcher, but about the support for Northern Irish terrorism that did so much damage in our country.

People will be rightly concerned that we should have a clear plan for what happens next in Libya—both in humanitarian terms, and also politically and diplomatically—following the successful conclusion of the no-fly zone. On humanitarian issues, the UK was one of the first to respond to the humanitarian needs arising from Gaddafi’s actions. We provided tents and blankets from our stores in Dubai for the thousands of migrant workers crossing the borders to escape the regime’s violence. We were the first country to provide flights to enable 12,000 migrant workers to return to their homes. This timely assistance prevented what was a logistical emergency from becoming a humanitarian crisis. The International Development Secretary announced last week that we will now support the International Committee of the Red Cross to deploy three medical teams. They will help to provide both medical assistance to the 3,000 people affected by the fighting, and food and essential items for 100,000 of the most vulnerable. From the beginning, we urged the United Nations to lead international pressure for unfettered humanitarian access within Libya. We are now planning for new humanitarian needs that may emerge as a result of the conflict.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I am sceptical about this country’s involvement in air raids on another Muslim and Arab country. However, I accept that there has been a huge success in saving lives in Benghazi. It would make me feel more relaxed about the resolution this evening if the Prime Minister gave a commitment to report back regularly to the House and to ask for further authority to continue the operations.

[The Prime Minister]

Of course there should be regular statements in this House. I gave a statement on Friday and we are having a debate on a substantive motion today. There should be regular updates on the humanitarian situation, what our defence forces are doing, and political and diplomatic activity. I do not believe that right now there is a need to go back to the UN for further permission, because the resolution could not be clearer. It combined three different elements: an immediate ceasefire, action for a no-fly zone, and action to protect civilians and stop the loss of life. It was an incredibly complete UN resolution, and that is why we should give it such strong support.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

Let me say one more word about the issue of planning for the humanitarian situation. It is important that in supporting the implementation of the resolution, the international system should plan now for stabilising the peace that we hope will follow. That could include rapidly restoring damaged infrastructure, keeping important services such as health and education running, reforming the security sector, and ensuring an open and transparent political process to elections. All that will take time and require an internationally led effort, but Britain is committed to playing its part.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for the leadership that he has shown on this issue. Given what has been said about Kurdistan this afternoon and the reports that Gaddafi has mustard gas, what action will the allies take to stop him if he starts using it against his own people?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an issue of real concern, on which we keep a very sharp focus. After Gaddafi supposedly came in from the cold, there was an agreement for him to give up weapons of mass destruction. He destroyed some of them, but he still has the supplies to which my hon. Friend refers. We have to make sure that there is absolutely no sign of their being used.

In terms of what happens politically and diplomatically, what is crucial is that the future of Libya is for the people of Libya to decide, aided by the international community. The Libyan opposition has made it clear that it does not want to see a division of its country, and neither do we. It has also expressed a clear and overwhelming wish for Gaddafi to go, and we agree with that too, but the UN resolution is limited in its scope. It explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means. As I have said, we will help to fulfil the UN Security Council’s resolution. It is for the Libyan people to determine their Government and their destiny, but our view is clear: there is no decent future for Libya with Colonel Gaddafi remaining in power.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On a wider point, it is a change in philosophy on the part of the UN and the international community not to tolerate those involved in the internal repression of their own populations. What is going to happen to leaders in other countries round the world who are indulging in Gaddafi-style behaviour?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is why UN Security Council resolution 1973 could be something of a breakthrough. The world has come together and said that what this dictator is doing to his people—within his own country, but totally in breach of international law and all sign of human rights—is wrong and can be stopped by all necessary means. In the act of stopping him, let us hope that that sends a message to dictators the world over.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

With a no-fly zone in operation, a tyrant as brutal and determined as Gaddafi could decide to move the conflict into urban areas. In that scenario, does the resolution as it stands give us the scope to act to stop any humanitarian disaster that could occur?

[The Prime Minister]

The resolution gives us the scope to act, but clearly we have to act at all times to minimise civilian casualties. We must bear that in mind very carefully when we think about the military operations that we are engaged in.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will not give way any more.

Gaddafi has had every conceivable opportunity to stop massacring his own people. The time for red lines, threats and last chances is over. Tough action is needed now to ensure that people in Libya can lead their lives without fear and with access to the basic needs of life. That is what the Security Council requires and that is what we are seeking to deliver. There are rightly those who ask how and where this will end. Of course, there are difficulties and dangers ahead, but already we know, beyond any doubt, that we have succeeded in chasing Gaddafi’s planes out of the sky. We have saved the lives of many Libyans and we have helped to prevent the destruction of a great and historic city.

Of course, no one can be certain of what the future can hold, but as we stand here today, the people of Libya have a much better chance of determining their destiny and, in taking this action, we should be proud that we are not only acting in British interests but being true to our values as a nation. I commend the motion to the House.

16:16

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I rise to support the Government motion. Let me first welcome the fact that the Government have decided to have a substantive motion and, indeed, vote in this House, because it is right that the decision to commit our forces is made in this House. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), I urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues to ensure that the House has regular chances to debate this issue in the days and weeks ahead.

I want to pay tribute to our brave armed forces who are engaging in military action. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with them. The issue at the heart of today’s debate is this: on the one hand, we have the case for action outside our borders when we see people facing repression and butchery from others; yet, on the other hand, we have the caution that we must always show in the exercise of western and, indeed, British power for reasons of basic principle, imperial history and the consequences that might follow.

Today, I want to set out to this House why I believe that we should support the motion today and support our armed forces. I do so because I believe that the three key criteria for action exist: it is a just cause with a feasible mission and it has international support. Secondly, I want to address the central issue, not least among those raised by my hon. Friends, of how we reconcile the decision to intervene in Libya and the hard cases elsewhere. Thirdly, I want to raise a number of issues that will require clarity if this mission is to succeed.

Today and in the coming weeks, our duty as the official Opposition is to support the UN resolution and at the same time to scrutinise the decisions that are made to maximise the chances of success of this mission. Let me start with the case for action. In the days and weeks ahead—the Prime Minister said this in his speech—we must always remember the background to the debate. We have seen with our own eyes what the Libyan regime is capable of. We have seen guns being turned on unarmed demonstrators, we have watched warplanes and artillery being used against civilian population centres, we have learned of militia violence and disappearances in areas held by Gaddafi’s forces and we have heard the leader of the Libyan opposition say:

“We appeal to the international community, to all the free world, to stop this tyranny from exterminating civilians.”

And we have heard Colonel Gaddafi gloat that he would treat the people of Benghazi, a city of 700,000 people—the size of Leeds—with “no mercy or compassion”.

In 1936, a Spanish politician came to Britain to plead for support in the face of General Franco’s violent fascism. He said:

“We are fighting with sticks and knives against tanks and aircraft and guns, and it revolts the conscience of the world that that should be true.”

As we saw the defenceless people of Libya attacked by their own Government, it would equally revolt the conscience of the world to know that we could have done something to help them yet chose not to.

[Mr Cash]

In the context of the important issue of arming those who are resisting Gaddafi, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that every effort must be made, within the terms of the resolution, to apply to the sanctions committee of the United Nations to enable paragraph 9(c) of resolution 1970 to be applied in such a way as to ensure that people in Benghazi and elsewhere are properly supplied with arms so that they can defend themselves? As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is a parallel with what happened in 1936.

[Edward Miliband]

As the Prime Minister said when we discussed the issue a week or so ago, we need to be cautious and ensure that we always comply with the terms of the UN mandate, but as long as we stick to the UN mandate, that is the right thing to do.

[Robert Halfon]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, in part, we are where we are because of the actions of the last Government in appeasing and collaborating with Gaddafi, in selling him weapons, and in building business and academic links?

[Edward Miliband]

To be fair to the Prime Minister, he conducted this debate in the right terms. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that today is not the day for party political point-scoring. Let me say this also: in 2005, when Tony Blair made the decision that he made, voices were not raised against him, because there was no sign of a popular uprising in Libya. What people worried about was Colonel Gaddafi—and the Prime Minister eloquently described the problems and dangers posed by him—possessing nuclear weapons and threatening the rest of the world, and I think that Tony Blair was right to try to bring him into the international community.

A debate is often conducted about rights to intervene, but this debate is about not rights but responsibilities. The decade-long debate about the “responsibility to protect” speaks precisely to this question. As the House will know, the responsibility to protect was adopted in 2005 at the world summit and was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council, and it should help to frame our debate today. It identifies a “responsibility to react” to

“situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures…and in extreme cases military intervention”.

It identifies four cautionary tests which will help us in this debate as we consider intervention:

“right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospects”.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition is making a very thoughtful case. Can he tell us how much intervention he thinks it reasonable for the west to make in what is really a civil war in which the rebel side is experiencing considerable difficulties?

[Edward Miliband]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not agree that this is a civil war. There was a popular uprising against the Gaddafi regime that Gaddafi is cruelly and brutally trying to suppress. I think that we should bear that in mind as we implement the terms of the resolution.

The responsibility to protect identifies those four tests that we should apply, and I think that they will inform the debate today. The first is the test of “right intentions”. Our intentions are right: we are acting to protect the Libyan people, to save lives, and to prevent the Gaddafi regime from committing serious crimes against humanity. We do not seek commercial gain or geopolitical advantage, and we are not intending to occupy Libya or seize her natural resources. This is not a power play or an attempt to install a new Government by force. Colonel Gaddafi is the one who is trying to impose his political will with violence, and our role is to stop him.

This is the “last resort” to protect the Libyan people. Sanctions and other measures have been tried, including in resolution 1970, and they have not stopped Colonel Gaddafi. As the Prime Minister said, his ceasefire was simply a lie paraded to the international community before his forces once again attacked Benghazi. As for proportionality, the UN resolution makes it clear that the means must be proportional, and we should always follow that in what we do.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, although what he is saying is of great importance, there are also lessons to be learned. Does he not think that it is time for a wholesale review of our policy of military co-operation and arms sales in the case of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and of what is happening in Yemen and further afield in the Congo, the Ivory Coast and other places? At what point is he prepared to say that we should be involved or not involved, and at what point is he prepared to say that we will seriously scale down our arms export industry, which actually leads to much of the oppression in the first place?

[Edward Miliband]

Let me deal with those two very serious points. On the first point about arms exports, we have rightly said that there should be a comprehensive review of the implementation and nature of our policy on arms sales. When we see what has happened in parts of north Africa, we are worried about the use of British arms for internal repression. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will come to his second point about double standards later in my speech. The Prime Minister has also talked about that very important issue.

[Mr Baron]

Compliance with the UN resolution might not equal an endgame. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose that we should do about the no-fly zone if we manage to comply with the resolution but at the same time Gaddafi is left in place because there is a stalemate on the ground?

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to talk about that in my speech as well, but I want to respond directly to the hon. Gentleman. We do not always know how things will end, so the question is whether, when we are faced with the choices we face, it is better to take action or to stand aside. This is a really important point and we will be scrutinising the Government and the Prime Minister in the coming weeks, looking for a clear strategy. I have looked back at the debate about Kosovo in 1999, which was led by Robin Cook, and people were making the same arguments then. The truth is that we did not know where things were going to end, but by taking action in Kosovo we saved the lives of tens of thousands of people.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one way in which we can help the Libyan people and the rebellion against Gaddafi is by recognising them as the legitimate Government. Would he support the Government in taking that position if it were put forward?

[Edward Miliband]

This is a very tricky issue, but let me respond to the hon. Gentleman. In a joint statement with President Sarkozy, the Prime Minister recognised the transitional council as one of the reasonable interlocutors—I think that was the phrase. The reason for that is that we need to scrutinise very carefully who the best interlocutors are and who the natural alternative to Colonel Gaddafi is. There is a history to this and jumping too early in that regard has its own dangers. I think it is right to recognise the transitional council as a reasonable interlocutor.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman’s reference to Kosovo is entirely apt because it was out of the frustrations of Kosovo, for which no United Nations Security Council resolution could be obtained, that the doctrine of the duty to protect arose. Its genesis was in a speech made by Tony Blair in Chicago in 1999. In this particular case, are we not on much stronger ground because the Security Council has said expressly in the provision that “all necessary measures” may be taken?

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has huge expertise in this area and he makes an important point. This is a very important moment for multilateralism because a UN resolution has been passed without opposition at the Security Council. This is a real test of the international community and its ability to carry through not just our intentions but the intentions and values of the United Nations. He is completely right about that.

I was talking about proportionality, which is the third test of the responsibility to protect. It is right to say that our targeting strategy and that of our allies—this is something that the Prime Minister and I have discussed—must be restricted to military targets that pose a threat to civilians. We should always exercise the utmost care in the nature of our targeting because we know how important that is both as a matter of principle and for the conduct of our campaign.

On the fourth criterion of reasonable success, there is every reason to believe, as we have already shown in the past few days, that we can stop the slaughter on which Colonel Gaddafi appears to have embarked.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the important matter of targeting by the allies in the attacks against the regime, but is he aware that Colonel Gaddafi is putting civilians in the places where such targets are, thereby making the situation for the coalition Government ever more difficult?

[Edward Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently of the evil of Colonel Gaddafi in doing that. The care taken by our armed forces, which the Prime Minister has talked about, is incredibly important because they are facing incredibly difficult decisions.

The responsibility to protect recognises that there need to be tests applied to intervention, but also, crucially, that interventions require international authority and consent. In this case, the Arab League endorses a no-fly zone, and the UN Security Council expressed a clear will, with the support of 10 countries. It is worth drawing attention to which countries those are, because they include Lebanon, Colombia and South Africa. A broad spectrum of countries from across the world gave their support to the UN resolution.

There is international consent, a just cause and a feasible mission, but we also need—this is very important—to maintain public support here at home, because this House is not just contemplating expressing its support for an international resolution; it is discussing its position on the use of armed forces. We are a generous and compassionate people, but there will no doubt be some people in the country—indeed, we have heard it in parts of this House—wondering whether it really needs to be us, now, at this time. It is a valid and important question, but in the end, as well as there being the geopolitical questions that the Prime Minister raised, we have to make a judgment about our role in the world and our duty to others. Where there is just cause, where feasible action can be taken, and where there is international consent, are we really saying that we should be a country that stands by and does nothing? In my view, that would be a dereliction of our duty, our history, and our values. Let us not forget that those who have risen up against Colonel Gaddafi are part of a wider movement for reform and democracy that we are seeing across north Africa. We cannot and should not abandon them.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I have supported humanitarian interventions in the past, and I am minded to do the same in this case, but the reason why we are expected to intervene, rather than others, is that we are stronger than others. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a huge hole in the defence budget. Does he know from his conversations with the Government whether the funding for what could be a very long-term and expensive operation will be added to the core defence budget, or taken from it?

[Edward Miliband]

I have been given those reassurances by the Prime Minister. Today, as the House debates this question, I want to concentrate on the important issues before us, including the capability of our armed forces, but I have been given that reassurance by the Government.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is obviously right that we should focus on Libya today, but as my right hon. Friend knows, the situation in Yemen is deteriorating every hour. Is there not a duty on the Arab League and coalition partners to try to work to prevent further conflict in Yemen by promoting the need for dialogue?

[Edward Miliband]

I know that my right hon. Friend has been one of the leading voices on the question of Yemen, and he is absolutely right about that; I am coming to that now in my speech. I have set out the case for support for the resolution and our participation, but—this is the second part of my remarks—that will not be enough for everyone in the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I will make a bit more progress. Many will ask one additional question: why are we intervening in Libya, but not in other countries around the world? It is a valid question, and it is right to say that there are many other hard cases. What is happening in Yemen is deeply troubling, and what is happening in Bahrain is equally troubling. Historically, the cases of Burma, Rwanda and other countries live on in our conscience, and yet here I do agree with the Prime Minister: the argument that because we cannot do everything we cannot do anything is a bad argument. In the world that we live in, the action that we take depends on a combination of principle and pragmatism—what is right, and what can be done. That is not perfect, but an imperfect world order is not an excuse for inaction.

[Graham Stringer]

My right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have both enunciated what is really the Blair doctrine: “If you can’t do everything, it doesn’t stop you doing something.” I would be more supportive of that principle if there were clear criteria laid down in advance about when we should do something, rather than it looking as though it were an ad hoc decision on every occasion.

[Edward Miliband]

I am not sure that the Prime Minister and I are competing to call it the Blair doctrine. On the substantive question that my hon. Friend raises, he is right to say that we need criteria. I think that the responsibility to protect is of great assistance to us there. I think that it has been overlooked at times during our debates. It is endorsed by the UN Security Council and General Assembly.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the passing of UN Security Council resolution 1973 represents a watershed moment, as the Prime Minister seemed to intimate, because of the way in which the international community now looks at the behaviour of Governments repressing the citizens of their own countries?

[Edward Miliband]

I think it is too early to declare it a watershed moment, but the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that those who desire a world order based on principle as well as on power should support the resolution and the motion before us today. Whatever the flaws of multilateralism and the UN—and there are many—they are our best hope for the kind of world order based on principle that we want to see. If we can demonstrate that the international community has come together in the case of Libya to prevent Colonel Gaddafi’s action against his people, this will mark an important moment. We will have acted on the basis of a firm legal base.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

That Gaddafi is a murderous tyrant has never been in doubt from the time he seized power in 1969. Like all hon. Members, however, I am concerned about the situation in many other countries, and the doubt in my mind stems from the fact that intervention by western powers is so selective. Last week, 45 people were slaughtered in Yemen, yet no one has suggested that we should intervene there. In Bahrain, there has been armed intervention by Saudi Arabia, but our Government have not suggested that we should intervene. It seems that, to a large extent, we intervene only in countries whose regimes are considered anti-west.

[Edward Miliband]

It is hard to calibrate the different regimes, but I believe that Colonel Gaddafi’s threat to hundreds of thousands of people in Benghazi and elsewhere puts him in a particular category. I also say to my hon. Friend that this is not a perfect world and, in the end, we have to make a judgment about what can be done. This is something that I think can be done.

[Angus Robertson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

I want to make some more progress. I will try to give way before the end of my speech, but I am conscious that many people want to speak in the debate.

If we succeed, we will have sent a signal to many other regimes that, in the face of democratic protest and the demand for change, it is simply not acceptable to turn to methods of repression and violence. And yet, if this pragmatic case for action in Libya is to stand and win support, it is all the more important that we speak out firmly, without fear or favour, against repression wherever we find it. In Bahrain, where the regime has apparently fired tear gas into a hospital, and in Yemen, where the murder of innocent civilians has taken place, we must be on the side of people and against the forces of repression wherever we find them.

We should address the longer-running issues affecting security and human rights in the middle east, particularly Israel-Palestine, where we must show that we can advance the peace process, and we must put pressure on our American allies to do so. We cannot be silent on these issues, either as a country or as an international community.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and other hon. Members have mentioned the concept of a successful outcome. How would the right hon. Gentleman define success in this context, and how will we know when we have reached the point at which it is appropriate to implement an exit strategy?

[Edward Miliband]

That is a question that the Government will no doubt be seeking to answer in the days and weeks ahead. It is hard to define success at this point, except to say that we have a clear UN resolution before us on the protection of the Libyan people, and that we must seek to implement that resolution. That is the best criterion for success that we have, for now. No doubt the Government will want to build on that as the campaign unfolds.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that it will be hard to know when we should end this action. Will he therefore press the Government to ensure that the House is given constant opportunities to review the situation, so that we can be assured that mission creep is not taking place and that we are not going beyond what is necessary, and so that we can make the right decision at the appropriate time?

[Edward Miliband]

I think that my hon. Friend probably speaks for Members across the House, and Ministers will have heard what she and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said. It is important that the House is not just kept up to date but has the chance to debate these issues. I see the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary nodding.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The point about regular scrutiny of what happens is incredibly important, not just to hon. Members but for the wider public. Talking to constituents over the weekend, I discovered that they had great concerns about our involvement, and about the length and level of that involvement. A great deal is needed from the Government to reassure the public about that involvement, not just now but over the coming weeks and months.

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend probably speaks for many hon. Members from all parts of the House who went back to talk to their constituents. There is obvious concern, for a range of reasons, about our engaging in another military action, and it is a completely understandable concern.

That takes me on to the third part of my speech, which is about not just defining the mission but ensuring that there is clarity as it moves forward. There are a number of questions and challenges that the Government must seek to answer in the days ahead. In particular, there are four areas that require clarity: clarity about the forces and command structure involved; clarity about the mandate; clarity about our role in it and the limits; and most difficult of all, clarity about the endgame.

On broad participation in the mission and the forces involved, I want to impress again on the Prime Minister, as I did on Friday—and he himself noted this—the central importance of Arab participation, not just in the maintenance of the no-fly zone but in all the diplomatic work that is essential to keep the coalition together. I welcome what he said about a regular coalition meeting, because that is important. The Arab League’s decision to support a no-fly zone was central to turning the tide of opinion, which is why there was concern in various quarters about the apparent comments of Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, yesterday. He has since sought to correct the interpretation of those comments. I urge the Prime Minister—I am sure that this is being done, but it is important—to develop the fullest and most comprehensive diplomatic strategy to maintain the support of those countries and, indeed, the broadest possible coalition. That means not just keeping the countries in the region informed of our mission but ensuring that they are consulted on it.

We must be clear about the mandate of the UN resolution. We all want to see Colonel Gaddafi gone, and the Prime Minister repeated that today. None of us, however, should be under any illusions or in any doubt about the terms of what was agreed. The resolution is about our responsibility to protect the Libyan people—no more, no less.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Edward Miliband]

Not for the moment.

I say to the Government—and the Prime Minister will know this—it is incredibly important that the international community observes the terms of the resolution in its actions and in what it says. I shall not rehearse the arguments about past conflicts, but we all know that ambiguity about the case for intervention is often one of the biggest problems that a mission faces. The House should be clear about the degree of difficulty of what we are attempting in securing a coalition from beyond western powers to support intervention in another, north African, state, so we cannot afford mission creep, and that includes in our public pronouncements.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The point that my right hon. Friend is making is important. Gaddafi could prove to be very difficult indeed to remove, so we cannot impose limitations on the length of time that the action and the enforcement of the resolution will take. Civilians in Tripoli are as valuable as civilians in Benghazi, so the actions that we take will be measured by the people who support them, which will be a judgment on whether what we are doing is in line with the international agreement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an important point we must always bear in mind?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is very important in all our public pronouncements to be careful about what we say. As the Prime Minister said, in principle it must be for the Libyan people to determine the shape of their future.

Military action by the coalition can be accompanied by a wide range of non-military measures to continue the pressure on the Libyan regime. Security Council resolution 1973, as well as resolution 1970, sets out all the measures that can be taken, including cutting off access to money, trade, weapons and international legitimacy for Colonel Gaddafi. And we need to remind Libyan leaders and commanders that they will be brought to justice for any crimes they commit against their people.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition who, like the Prime Minister, is giving a powerful and thoughtful speech. He spoke about the duty to protect, and looking to liberal interventionism as a possible breakthrough watershed in global politics. Does he believe that it requires UN resolutions in future for countries, including our own, to be involved in implementing a duty to protect?

[Edward Miliband]

In the end, we have to look at that on a case-by-case basis, and the responsibility to protect looks at that issue, but clearly the hon. Gentleman is right to say that international consent is incredibly important for any mission that we undertake.

[Joan Ruddock]

On the point about our public pronouncements, my right hon. Friend will have seen headlines such as “Blown to Brits” and “mad dog” and references to Gaddafi’s head on a spike. Does he agree that in this very serious circumstance, such language is completely inappropriate when our military forces and the people of Libya are in such grave danger?

[Edward Miliband]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right that we must exercise extreme care in all our public pronouncements. I will leave it at that.

The third point on which we must be clear is the role and limit of our forces. The resolution is clear that this is not about an army of occupation. The Prime Minister said on Friday that it was not about boots on the ground. There are obviously operational and strategic constraints on what the Prime Minister can say about our intentions, but we need as much clarity as possible, including answers to the issues of public consent and public opinion that were raised.

Finally, the Prime Minister is, I am sure, aware about people’s worries that this will end up being a mandate for stalemate. The argument that we do not know the precise sequence of events that will unfold is not a good argument for inaction. As I said earlier, in the Kosovo debate in 1999 Robin Cook was confronted by exactly the same arguments. Today it is hard to find anybody who thinks that action was wrong. We were right to proceed, but equally, the Government and their allies cannot be absolved of the responsibility of planning a clear strategy for what might happen in different eventualities and what our approach might be.

[Rehman Chishti]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I shall finish, as others want to come in.

It is essential that both we and multilateral institutions prepare for the peace, whatever form that might take. Indeed, alongside the responsibility to protect is the responsibility to rebuild. I am sure that is something that the Government will be urgently undertaking. It is imperative that they do.

Let me end on this point. Today’s debate is conducted in the shadow of history of past conflicts. For me, it is conducted in the shadow of my family’s history as well: two Jewish parents whose lives were changed forever by the darkness of the holocaust, yet who found security in Britain. This is a story of the hope offered by Britain to my family, but many of my parents’ relatives were out of the reach of the international community and perished as a result. In my maiden speech in the House, I said that I would reflect

“the humanity and solidarity shown to my family more than 60 years ago”.—[Official Report, 23 May 2005; Vol. 434, c. 489.]

These are the kind of things we say in maiden speeches, but if they are to be meaningful, we need to follow them through in deeds, not just words. That is why I will be voting for the motion tonight, and why I urge the whole House to vote for it.

16:49

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Nothing could demonstrate more eloquently the difference between the ill-conceived Iraq war and this operation than the overwhelming agreement on both sides of the Chamber, including the very eloquent and moving speech by the Leader of the Opposition. We now have a no-fly zone, the effect of which has been to neutralise the Libyan air force and take it out of the conflict. There is a naval blockade on Libya, which means that none of the coastal towns can be subject to bombardment. However, Gaddafi’s army remains, and it is legitimate to ask how the objectives of the Security Council resolution can be met, given those circumstances.

As the Prime Minister and others have pointed out, the Security Council resolution allowed us to do that because “all necessary measures” is a very well-known term. I was puzzled when Mr Amr Moussa expressed confusion on behalf of the Arab League about the action being taken, given that Lebanon, a member of the league, was a sponsor of the resolution. He must have known what it was intended to lead to, and I am relieved that he has moved on from that.

What we have seen already is the use of military power—the UN is entitled to do this—to attack artillery, heavy weapons and tanks on the roads of Libya where they might threaten civilian populations, but that is also relevant to the difficult question asked by one of my hon. Friends: what about Libyan regime forces that might have penetrated the towns and cities, where direct attack might be very dangerous? The need to protect civilians is of course paramount, but I believe that that matter will be addressed, because even the regime troops that have penetrated the towns and cities will need to have supplies of fuel and food renewed and other equipment provided, and that can now be blocked because any attempt to provide such reinforcements from outside the towns and cities can now be subject to the most precise destruction by coalition forces. That aspect of the resolution is very welcome.

There is another aspect to consider. Although we talk about a no-fly zone, the areas where civilian lives might be endangered or threatened have in fact become a no-combat zone. It is worth considering that the Security Council resolution stipulates not only “all necessary measures”, but

“all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970”,

which is the resolution that imposed the arms embargo. That must mean that it is now appropriate under the terms of the resolution to supply the insurgents in Libya with military supplies in order to protect the civilian populations in which those insurgents are to be found. I hope that the Foreign Secretary or whoever will be winding up the debate will confirm that.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

We have such limited time that my hon. Friend will have to forgive me for not giving way.

The third factor, which is very significant, is the statement made by President Obama on behalf of all members of the coalition in which he said that this is not simply a question of a ceasefire, but that the Gaddafi authorities are required to withdraw from the various towns and cities they have been threatening. If they do not do so, under the cover of darkness or at some future moment we could face the same problem again. Those are the components available to the coalition and authorised by the United Nations, and I believe that that cannot be seriously disputed.

The second part of my remarks relates to the endgame. What will happen if Gaddafi not only announces a ceasefire, but is forced to respect it, as is likely in the next few days? Does that mean it is all over? I do not think that that would be an appropriate interpretation of the resolution. Even if he introduces a ceasefire that seems genuine for a few days or a couple of weeks, we would have to be satisfied that he was not going to break it as soon as a no-fly zone resolution is withdrawn, because it would be incredibly difficult to have it reinserted again. We would have to be satisfied that the Gaddafi regime, if it remained in power, would continue to be sincere about a ceasefire resolution. It might mean that bombing by coalition forces or raids that damage or destroy elements of the Libyan army are not required, but we would certainly be required to maintain the resolution in force so that it could be re-enacted with all severity, even if it appears that a real ceasefire has be conceded in a few days’ time.

What does that mean for the future of Libya? Well, we just do not know. We cannot pretend to predict what will happen, because so much could and ought to depend on the actions of the Libyans themselves. There might be an uprising in Tripoli, and there might need to be civilian protection in that area—in the capital city—as well. Gaddafi’s own cronies—his own generals and Ministers—might defect as they were doing just a few weeks ago when they realised the game was up, but the most important consideration, if we are to get rid of the Gaddafi regime, is for the Libyan people to liberate themselves.

If air power has now been removed from the Gaddafi regime, if the blockade prevents use of the Libyan navy, and if it is possible, as I have suggested, in certain circumstances for military supplies to be made available to some of the insurgents for the protection of civilians, then that provides an opportunity whereby, if the Libyan people themselves overwhelmingly, as they seem to, want to get rid of that noxious regime, they will have the military means, the support of the international community and the well wishes of the Arab League to do so. In that way, we can all be satisfied that a job will be truly well done.

16:55

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I am a late and very reluctant supporter of these operations, and that is not because I have become a pacifist overnight, I can assure people. It is because it is relatively easy to support things on day one and relatively difficult to support them in month three, or in month nine—and this is a situation that cannot be foreseen. I remind people that, over the past couple of years, I have been somewhat concerned about the degree of enthusiasm in parts of this country—particularly in the media, but in parts of this House and in parts of the population as well—for yet another operation abroad, and I would have thought that that enthusiasm had been somewhat tempered by our recent experiences.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) says how different it is now, in the House today, from when we voted for the Iraq war, but may I remind him that it is not? There was a huge majority in favour of the Iraq war, and his own party was massively in favour of it.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Ainsworth]

indicated dissent.

One hundred and seventy-nine British lives and a lot of other consequences later, we can all see that there were some grave difficulties with getting involved, but many of those people who can see them now could not see them on that day.

On Afghanistan, 360 British lives and many consequences—

[Martin Horwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Ainsworth]

I am not going to give way.

On Afghanistan, we are now 360 British lives and many consequences later, but not so many of us could see the consequences on day one as can see them now. I was, and I am unashamedly happy to have been, reluctant and late in my support for the resolution.

I would not give my support tonight for the resolution if it were not for the fact that the United Nations had given its support, and that there was a breadth of support, including from the Arab League, for this intervention. That was because people worked at the issue, and worked at it pretty hard, so I commend the general positioning of the President of the United States of America, who flatly refused to lead on it until he could see that others were prepared to come with him. I think that his position was in part responsible for the breadth of support that there is.

I want people to agree that it is enormously important that we maintain that breadth of support, and I want to know from the Government that there will be a real attempt to maintain it. The Prime Minister has told us that, after American leadership of the military operations, the plans are to hand the mission over to NATO, and he knows that it will be necessary to get Turkey on board in order for NATO to be prepared to take over the command structures of the operation. That will be an enormously positive thing, and we must put all effort into seeing to it that Arab countries—and Turkey, which as a Muslim country, is really important here—are prepared to take a lead. Qatar being prepared to provide hardware is of huge significance.

Are we serious about allowing others to be seen to lead? The Prime Minister told the House that he, President Obama and President Sarkozy had agreed that there were certain non-negotiable conditions. Why can we not have more people involved in deciding what those non-negotiable conditions are? Let us make sure that we do not do anything other than strain every muscle to see to it that the coalition that supports this action is maintained and continues to be as broad as it can.

May I say to the Prime Minister that even if it were sensible that Colonel Gaddafi be targeted as part of this operation, it cannot possibly be sensible for the British Defence Secretary to give the impression that that is okay? I hope that that kind of loose talk does not continue.

There are other issues that we ought to come to—such as the strategic defence review and our own ability to conduct these kinds of operations in future—that it is not appropriate for us to go into at this time. Certain issues need to be talked about because this operation has become necessary, such as our ability to proceed. In these circumstances, and in so many others, there are a lot more legitimate questions as a result of what has needed to be said in the past couple of weeks, and we will have to have those conversations in the months to come.

17:02

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

On 18 March 2003, just over eight years ago, I voted against military action against Saddam Hussein. If I thought that the present action was illegitimate, I should have no hesitation in voting against it, because if we ask our young men and women to put their lives at risk, as we do, then the cause must be just, not only in strict legality terms but in political and even social terms.

I thought that the action against Saddam Hussein was illegal—it is a view that I have never had occasion to alter—but this action is necessary, legal and legitimate. It is necessary because of the systematic brutality of Colonel Gaddafi towards his own people, whose only crime is to want the opportunity to have a more democratic form of government and to enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The lives of his people have been threatened in recent times by an immediate and chilling promise to go from house to house, from room to room, and to show no mercy. I invite the House to consider this: supposing we had allowed a slaughterhouse to take place in Benghazi, then what would have been the nature and the terms of the debate today?

I believe this action to be legal because of the express authority of a United Nations Security Council resolution, buttressed, as the Leader of the Opposition and I have just agreed, by the evolving doctrine of international law—namely, the duty to protect, which, as I pointed out, had its genesis in a speech made by Tony Blair in 1999 in Chicago, whereupon it was developed and adopted by the United Nations. There is legitimacy, yes, because this action springs from a universal repugnance of the international community against the brutal excesses of the Gaddafi regime, and it has the regional support of the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council.

Be in no doubt, however, that Mr Gaddafi will be a dangerous opponent. Deceit, deception and defiance have kept him in power for many, many years. Be in no doubt, too, that to maintain the international coalition will require both skill and sensitivity. Be in no doubt that keeping public confidence at home will require resolve, determination and transparency.

Questions are already being asked in this House, as has been demonstrated by this debate, in an exercise of democratic scrutiny. I pause to observe that in Gaddafi’s Libya, no such opportunities are available. The right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) spoke about targeting. Neither the resolution nor international law would justify the specific targeting––or, in truth, the assassination––of Colonel Gaddafi. However, if he were engaged in direct control of military operations contrary to the resolution, and the command and control centre in which he was to be found was the subject of attack, he would be a legitimate target.

Questions have been asked about what success will look like and what are the terms of disengagement. It is not possible to be specific, but the answers to those questions and to the continuing questions that are thrown up by this debate will be found in the framework of the resolution and in the conduct of Colonel Gaddafi. The onus is now on him.

17:06

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Obviously we are all constrained by time, but these are grave matters not only for the people of Libya, but for the people of this country and for our allies, and indeed for the future of the United Nations.

In framing my remarks, I am minded to use the words of a wily old operator of recent years in this House, the late, great Eric Forth, who once said that when there is unanimity between the Front Benches, it is almost axiomatic that they are wrong. I do not believe that to be the case, but I believe that it is incumbent on us to examine most carefully those who do not agree with the proposition that is advanced by the Government and supported by the Opposition. I will vote with the Government tonight, but like my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and any Member of this House who has any sense, I have a number of reservations about the nature of the path on which we are embarking, where it will take us, how it will end—which a number of Members have spoken about—how we can measure success, and what it presages for future international engagement and involvement.

International experience of recent times may lead us to different conclusions. The actions in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan and the complete inaction, for various reasons, in Rwanda and Zimbabwe have all had consequences for those involved. Otto von Bismarck, a politician perhaps not as great as Eric Forth, described politics as the art of the possible. In such issues, what matters is what is politically possible; I do not think that there is an abiding principle that unites them. It is a case of whether the ingredients necessary for international action and the will to undertake international action can be marshalled in the right proportion and with the requisite enthusiasm.

I can well understand those in this country who say, “This is nothing to do with us. Why, again, is it British armed forces—British servicemen and women—who are being placed in harm’s way when there is no direct British interest?” The Prime Minister referred to that point earlier. I agree that the interests of this nation and our people are not always directly connected to such matters. Sometimes there are dotted-line connections that have to be borne in mind. There are those who are asking, “Why should we get involved?” Somebody on the television last week, I think a former editor of The Sun, was saying that all the lives in Libya were not worth one ounce of British blood. I think that is a particularly brutal and unpleasant view of the world—that may be a prerequisite for being editor of The Sun—but I do not think many civilised people in this country share it.

The need to consider people’s reservations is important, though. We cannot offer all the guarantees that people would want, but as the Prime Minister pointed out and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition echoed, the fact that we cannot do everything does not mean we should do nothing. To those who want consistency and say, “You’ve made mistakes in the past,” the only answer is that that doctrine would lead us to believe that, for consistency’s sake, we must carry on making mistakes in the future, and that we should never do anything right if we have never done it before. More particularly, it would be to say, “Be a pioneer, by all means, but never do anything for the first time.” Sometimes there are cases in which we just have to.

The situation will be difficult, including in considering what the end will look like. There can be no end under Gaddafi, I am convinced of that. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, if Gaddafi were to scale down his operations and the UN were to say that resolution 1973 had been discharged and should be dispensed with, as soon as we were gone he would take up the struggle against his own people again.

I believe that the only previous no-fly zone was authorised against Iraq, and of course it was supplanted only by the invasion and the war. I am not clear what the end of the current situation will be. More particularly, I have grave concerns about how we will judge whether events are going well or badly. I assume that in the first instance it will be about whether the Libyan people are no longer being harassed by Gaddafi, at least not overtly. For as long as that is the case, we can claim some success. We can already, because the assault on Benghazi that was clearly intended did not materialise in the way that Gaddafi and his henchmen envisaged.

We have a difficult choice. I will support the Government in their motion to support resolution 1973, because I believe that is less bad than the alternative of doing nothing. It is also consistent with the type of nation that I believe the majority of the British people make up. We are not the kind of people who pass by on the other side of the road. Sometimes we have to put up or shut up. On this occasion I shall certainly now shut up, but I believe we should put up.

17:12

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I fully understand why we intervened in Libya. Because of our actions today, on Friday and over the weekend, thousands of civilians are now safer than they were when they were within reach of Gaddafi’s butchering hand. We should reflect on the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) about Colonel Gaddafi’s statements that he would go from room to room, showing no mercy.

I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and his team for getting the resolution at the UN with considerable swiftness, and to our armed service personnel, who right now are risking life and limb to ensure that the civilians of Libya are protected from a regime that shows no appetite to stop.

Because of the military might of the west, we have to realise that the question of what comes next may arise more quickly than we think. We have already seen the accuracy of our armed forces and their ability to degrade a foreign power’s military, which means that we need to start thinking through the problems ahead. It is not enough just to implement and follow the spirit of resolution 1973. We have to show the world that we are doing so, and how. I believe that we need to be a little more transparent in that. We need to talk, perhaps, about the targets that we are hitting, because if we do not, Mr Gaddafi and the enemies of reform in the middle east may well fill the vacuum with their propaganda. We have already seen that today to some extent. It is important that, with the winds of change blowing through the middle east, we are very clear about what our red lines are and what we stand for. If we are not, we may be open to the charge of giving false hope to other countries, or to charges of hypocrisy.

We should remember that authority in the middle east has changed. It has moved away from the Ministers of Arab countries to whom we used to look for reassurances and towards the Arab street. Some Arab Ministers are not in as strong a position as they would like. We should not forget that the Arab street is becoming ever more emboldened throughout the region.

We should be consistent in our criticism. Bahrain is currently setting out on a course of sectarian violence and oppression against its 70% Shi’a majority. Indeed, a lady who worked for me recently and left Bahrain for Dubai was asked at every checkpoint whether she was Shi’a or Sunni. The Shi’as were taken out of the car and beaten and the Sunnis were allowed to progress.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for answering many of the concerns, worries and fears that my constituents expressed to me over the weekend. I say that as someone who played a small part in the no-fly zone over northern Iraq that lasted the best part of a decade. Does my hon. Friend agree that those fears, worries and uncertainties about the future are the legacy of Iraq?

[Mr Wallace]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is all about trust, and we therefore need an element of transparency, and to demonstrate in the region how we are implementing the UN resolution as a way of keeping that trust and that broad support for the resolution. To lose that would be a backward step.

We need to bear in mind some questions in the next few days and weeks as we progress towards implementing the resolution. We need to ask ourselves and think through—perhaps in private but often in public—what happens if the rebels counter-attack. In wars, atrocities happen on both sides. What is our position? The resolution is about protecting civilians—that is our first and foremost duty. We must ask ourselves whether we are in danger of being manipulated by some groups. Are they using “one infidel against another”? Do people want democracy or a totalitarian state? What role can we play as a broad coalition to ensure that they follow the path of liberal democracy and tolerance?

Do we want regime change? Is that perhaps the inevitable end of the Gaddafi regime? Is Gaddafi himself a target? Speaking personally, I believe that Gaddafi is the same brutal mass murderer that he always was. He is the man who blew up Pan Am in the 1980s, armed the IRA in Northern Ireland and is responsible for the death of Yvonne Fletcher. We cannot teach old dogs new tricks, and some questions need to be answered about how we have got so far down the road as to allow an emboldened Gaddafi to be in his current position.

In the 13 years of the previous Government, there were some concerns about how the Foreign Office did its job. From time to time, we did not think through the problems. Let us remember that the Foreign Office recommended more deals with Gaddafi, and that some of us spoke out against that in the previous Parliament and before. Some of us said that Mr Gaddafi could not be trusted. Now we discover that the weapons of mass destruction deal—the deal that we were told in 2003 was the reason for bringing him in from the cold—was not honoured by Colonel Gaddafi. He kept some of his mustard gas, and the Foreign Office failed to inform us of that. If Mr Gaddafi is to go, he will not be missed by the House, but we should also ask ourselves whether he is the point of the exercise.

We should not forget the role that the modern age—the internet—has played in the revolution as it blows through the middle east. In 2009 in Iran, Twitter and Facebook empowered people on the streets. The movement will go from Libya to other places. However, let us not forget that every country in the middle east is unique. Factors such as Islam, sects, tribes, tradition and history should affect not only what happens on the ground but how we respond to the threat and to people who may be suppressed. We need to learn the lessons of history and remember that what we do today will have a ripple effect.

I do not envy the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the next stage of the challenge. Our action in Libya will ripple through the middle east. It may point in the right direction and lead the middle east into a more democratic, liberal environment. If we get it wrong—and it is a great gamble—we could end up with a middle east in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists and a less, not more, tolerant middle east. I wish the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary well in all that they do to try to ensure the right direction. It is time again to play the great game that we used to play so well rather than settle for the tactical, short-term policies of the past 13 years.

17:19

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago, I re-watched “Hotel Rwanda”, the chilling film portrayal of the massacres of the defenceless civilians who were hacked to pieces by the so-called forces of law and order because they had the misfortune to belong to the wrong ethnic group. In July 2005, when the UK had the EU presidency, I went to Srebrenica in Bosnia for the 10th anniversary commemoration of the day in 1995 when 10,000 unarmed civilians were brutally murdered by the forces of law and order because, in that case, they had had the misfortune to belong to the wrong religious group.

In Rwanda and Bosnia, the UN solemnly considered what it should do. In both theatres, there were already blue-hatted UN troops on the ground, but they stood by as the massacres took place in front of them. Those troops were there as peacekeepers, but there was no peace to keep—rather, peace urgently needed to be made.

Doing nothing in the face of evil is as much a decision with consequences as doing something. This resolution is historically significant not just on its own terms, but because, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, this is first occasion on which the Security Council has acted decisively upon the words relating to the responsibility to protect, which were agreed in the UN General Assembly in 2005, and in Security Council resolution 1674 2006.

[Martin Horwood]

I worked for Oxfam at the time of the Rwanda crisis and I strongly remember the awful situation in which UN forces found themselves. I hope the right hon. Gentleman was not implying fault on the part of the blue hats themselves, because their rules of engagement constrained them. The progress that the international community has made leading to the responsibility to protect is of course very positive.

[Mr Straw]

I was implying no such criticism of the blue hats. The responsibility for what did not happen in Rwanda and Bosnia rested and rests with the Security Council and the international community, which failed to take action in the face of what amounted to genocide.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) for twice mentioning that former Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his groundbreaking speech in Chicago in 1999, laid the foundation for what six years later became the agreement on the responsibility to protect.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the efforts and success of our diplomats in the UN Security Council in ensuring the correct wording of resolution 1973 should be well recommended?

[Mr Straw]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was going to say, but I am happy to put that on the record, not least because as a former member of the Foreign Office diplomatic service, he served me and my predecessors and successors very well.

We all know what the consequences of doing nothing about Colonel Gaddafi would have been: industrial-scale slaughter. The medium and longer-term consequences of the military enforcement of Security Council resolution 1973 will be more benign, but we must recognise that the situation is fraught with uncertainties. The progress towards democracy in Libya and elsewhere in the middle east, which all hon. Members and the peoples of the region seek, will be inherently more difficult than eastern Europe’s progress towards democracy after the Berlin wall came down 20 years ago.

The middle east is a tough region, and its democrats will face two primary threats: the autocrats such as Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, or Presidents Mubarak and Ben Ali; and alternatively, those who wish to misuse and misinterpret the great and noble religion of Islam to establish backward-looking autocracies no less terrible than those of Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.

Ultimately, the solution has to lie in the hands of the people of Libya and these other countries, but the international community—the United Kingdom included—can profoundly influence the final outcome by taking the right action or by inaction. I welcome what the Prime Minister said about the plans on which Her Majesty’s Government are already working. However, I hope that they will also draw together and publish a strategy setting out the UK’s vision for the region and the assistance they will provide, as part of an international programme, for an economic and political reconstruction of Libya carried out by the Libyans for the Libyans. I hope that that will include not just traditional overseas aid, but the work of an enhanced Westminster Foundation for Democracy, to nurture and sustain the growth of democratic institutions.

As we have heard, there are those who are reluctant or unwilling to support our action in Libya, and who seek a rationalisation for that inaction by making the relativist argument that we should not intervene in Libya unless or until we also intervene in, for example, Yemen, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. The immediate answer is that Libya is by far and away the most egregious case. I condemn the brutality elsewhere in the region as strongly as anybody else, but processes are under way in some parts—not all—of the region that might succeed, and in any event the democratic forces in those and other countries across the region will be greatly strengthened, not weakened, by the action we are taking in Libya. In my view, provided there is international pressure behind it, the revolution in attitudes sweeping the region will also increase the pressure on the Government of Israel properly to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians. No longer can the Government of Israel rely on complacent and compliant countries on their borders within the Arab world.

There is a parallel with Iraq, and I understand—why would I not?—its controversy. However, there is not the least doubt—not least from the mouth of Colonel Gaddafi himself—that but for the military action in Iraq, Gaddafi would never have given up his well-advanced nuclear weapons programme and a significant part of his chemical weapons programme. In the end, he had to give them up. Gaddafi without nuclear weapons is dangerous enough, as we have seen; Gaddafi with such weapons would have been far more dangerous—perhaps so dangerous that the international community would have been prevented from dealing with him today.

I salute our military personnel, as they are placed, yet again, in harm’s way on our behalf and that of the international community. I give my wholehearted support to the motion before the House, and I commend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their indefatigable work in securing—against the odds—the resolution.

17:28

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

Having watched these debates and diplomacy since the Falklands war, and having observed the battles on CNN and sanitised movie footage of jets taking off, troops returning fire and Union Jacks attached to aerials and advancing tanks, I find it a daunting thought to be in the House debating and contemplating our responsibility for the deployment of people whose principal purpose is to kill other people on our behalf. During my basic training in the Army, I realised that a sergeant shouting at me to stab and scream and stab again a bale of hay with a fixed bayonet was teaching me how to rip somebody apart. A few years later, I saw the remains of an IRA terrorist unit that had been ambushed by a Special Air Service unit. The remains had been shredded by the hundred of bullets that had gone through their bodies.

Following the first Gulf war, a friend of mine showed me some pictures that he had taken of the convoy attempting to escape back up to Iraq. One of the pictures was of the charred, black head and a desperate hand—black and maimed—of someone trying to leave their vehicle. There is nothing glorious or romantic about war. To those in the media who have portrayed what is happening now—or what has happened in previous wars—as some form of entertainment, I say that that is just not right. I am afraid that human beings need to commit brutal, savage attacks on each other to win wars.

I have spoken in the House before about our lack of political capital following the illegal war in Iraq and what I believe is a folly in Afghanistan. There may be moral reasons to fight again, but I will be honest: we are struggling to find the moral high ground from which to project that morality. As people have said, Gaddafi is the man who brought down the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie, the man who shipped the weapons that killed some of my colleagues and the man who killed WPC Fletcher. However, I feel uncomfortable about going to war. It is not a simple choice; it is a really difficult choice to contemplate.

This morning when I was coming to work, I listened to a phone-in from BBC television about whether we should kill Gaddafi. It was almost gladiatorial, as though people were phoning in so that we could see whether the populace was giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. I have to say that I was fairly disgusted that the killing of another human being, however disgusting he is, could become a form of entertainment.

While we pontificate about morality and our obligations, brave men and women are putting their lives at risk at our request. This is not a debate about student fees, the Scotland Bill or the double summer time Bill; this is about the business of war. We do not take this decision lightly. While we wage war on our enemy, Muslim brothers and Arab leaders—with a few exceptions—remain silent. It is more convenient to wait for the infidel to kill their Muslim brothers and then gesture disapproval than it is to stand up to a tyrant. To the new leaders of the emerging democracies out there in the middle east, I say this: “The next time a murderer comes to the end of his reign, you gather in your House, like we are today, and think about how you’re going to take your share of the responsibility and what you’re going to contribute.”

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kris Hopkins]

I am not going to give way.

I said that this was a decision that I do not take lightly, and I do not think this nation takes it lightly either, but I will support the Government. The Prime Minister was right to secure a UN mandate. His leadership stands in stark contrast to the leadership that has gone before in this nation. Let us hope that the positive responses from the United Nations are a sign of something to come because, fundamentally, it is the weakness of United Nations members that has created so many international disasters in the past.

17:33

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I would like to say something about the resolution and the immediate deployments, and then perhaps something about the exit strategy, the context in which all this is happening and its domestic effects over time.

Like everyone else, I have struggled with the question of moral relativism. Sometimes, the right statement comes out of the wrong mouth, which is difficult to deal with. However, there has been an ambivalence—certainly on the left—about revolutionary dictators in different parts of the world. My internationalism, which comes from my ethical socialism, has trumped all that, so on this occasion, because the proposal has UN support—something we claimed we needed for other things in the past—I will support the motion. However, I need to be clear: I will be supporting the Libyan people, the United Nations and Parliament, as opposed to the Government. There is a question about the Government keeping Parliament involved in the process, to which we will come back a number of times.

I have had the privilege of meeting armed service personnel, some of whom are probably delivering some of the activity at the moment: people forget about the T-boats, but suddenly they are terribly important. There are questions about aircraft—it was a little ironic to see American Harriers hopping back to their carrier, whereas our jets had to go a long way. There are all sorts of ironies in these things.

The question of intelligence for targeting is hugely important. We know that we cannot alienate the people; we need to show them that we are there to support them, and to do so. The illustration yesterday of an intelligent targeting process was very welcome and will, I think, pay enormous dividends, but it must be maintained.

On the no-fly zone, the Americans say, “Well, we’ve done that now. It’s in place. Job done.” I hope it is not “Mission accomplished”, as the Americans claimed in the last exercise we saw. The truth is that it is not a done deal. There might be some form of no-fly zone and sea blockade in place, but I asked about the clarity of the mandates, from which comes the clarity—or not—of the missions that are undertaken, and there clearly is not just one mission.

I do not want to go into the dispute about whether a decapitation strategy is necessary for Gaddafi. We need to understand that Gaddafi is an Arab and an African—he does not think as I think. He will do all sorts of things; we know that and we need to respond. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) made some interesting points that need to be pursued. We need clarity about the mandate.

It was suggested earlier that we could bend the arms embargo to arm certain groups of people. Let us be very clear: we cannot bend anything. If we start doing that, there will be moral relativism and we will lose the legitimacy we have just achieved through the endorsement of the United Nations and through the broader coalition of people coming to support us.

The point I am trying to make is that this is not just about Parliament talking to Arab leaders. It is not just about diplomacy among the leaderships—between the party leaders in this country or between Arab leaders—but about diplomacy and a conversation with, as everyone now calls it, the Arab street. Let us engage in that discussion and see some effort put in. We need people on the ground, not as an occupation force but to help conduct such activity. That is doubtless already happening, to some degree—men in black with beards are doing wonderful things, and they will need some more support. The burden of effort needs to shift to the diplomatic efforts, in their broader sense, to provide some sort of solution. There is no kinetic solution—there is an intelligence-led solution that needs to be—

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Havard]

No, I am sorry but time will not allow me to do so.

Let me say something about the exit strategy. We need to do all the things I have mentioned and a lot of other things that I do not have time to itemise now, but it is important to ask who we do them with and where we do them. Will we train people? Where will we train them? Who will help with the training? The Arab states’ involvement in the process is key. We need to internationalise it and to do so much more than we have in the past.

There is also a question of sustainability. We are still in Afghanistan. We need to get real about what we can and cannot do and we then need a conversation about the domestic effects of all this. There are domestic effects on the strategic defence and security review and other matters. Will we have the capability to operate in the littoral in the future? Discuss. The Defence Committee will discuss these matters but Parliament needs to do so too. We need to be very clear about the question of sustainability over time, because this is not just about the military—it is about the Department for International Development and about foreign policy. We need a clearer foreign policy, as was stated earlier. Unless we have an idea of what we are trying to do, we will not equip ourselves to do it.

I support the Libyan people, our armed forces and their families and this deployment, but—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I call James Arbuthnot.

17:39

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), who is Vice-Chairman of the Defence Committee. I hope to return to one of his observations later in my speech.

On Friday, I described the Prime Minister’s drive towards achieving the resolution as showing “courage and leadership”, but today let me first pay tribute to the courage and leadership shown by our armed forces. As John Nichol found when he was enforcing the no-fly zone in Iraq, those who fly into hostile territory take extreme personal risks. As ever, we make decisions that they then carry out, and we owe them as much as they are prepared to sacrifice on our behalf, which is everything. In that context, it was an extreme honour to be in the Chamber to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins). It was one of the most powerful and moving speeches that I have heard in the House, and I hope that others listen to it as well.

However, political actions, too, show moral courage or the lack of it. The safe thing to do would have been to leave the leadership to the United States or to countries nearer to Libya, probably in Africa. There was a large chance—and I have to say that it was my own expectation—that the resolution would fail. Demanding publicly something quite so controversial shows not only real clarity about what is right and wrong, but a willingness to risk rebuff and potential humiliation in order to do right. I am proud that we have a Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary who are willing to take such risks.

All the arguments against the resolution were considered by the United Nations in exhaustive detail and, in the end, rejected. Britain’s United Nations ambassador, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, is clearly a persuasive and respected man and is very, very good at what he does. We could have said that it was a matter for the Libyans; we could have left it to them, whatever the cost to civilians. But when the League of Arab States takes a different view, that suggests strongly that we ourselves should consider whether we should be so laissez-faire: our doing so would have had consequences elsewhere. Just as Arab countries were showing themselves ready to throw off tyranny, we would have been sending the message that the correct response for a tyrant is, in Gaddafi’s words, to show no pity and no mercy, and that message would have been heeded throughout the world. I therefore entirely support the motion.

However, this is only the beginning. There are some serious questions that need answering, and they will trouble those who support the motion just as much as they will trouble those who do not. First, what is the end state that we want to achieve? Obviously we would like to see the back of Gaddafi, but that is not part of the United Nations resolution; so with what will we be satisfied? Secondly, in general terms, what is our strategy for reaching whatever end state we wish to be satisfied with, and how will we decide when we have done so?

[Mr Straw]

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, correct to say that “getting rid of Gaddafi” is not part of resolution 1973, but the resolution that preceded it—resolution 1970, which provides for the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to investigate crimes against humanity in Libya—could easily bring about the arrest and incarceration of Colonel Gaddafi under international law. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to factor that into our strategy?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I entirely agree. On Friday I asked whether the aims of resolution 1973 were impossible to reach unless Gaddafi were gone. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, however, said that the resolution was about giving protection to the civilians, with which I entirely agree. He went on to say that it was about giving the Libyan people the chance to determine their own future. I do not see anything in the resolution that says that, but I think we need to be clear about it.

Thirdly, will further resolutions from the United Nations be needed or sought as a result of some of the questions that will arise during this debate?

The fourth question is about exactly how far the advice of the Attorney-General takes us. We must be absolutely clear about what is sanctioned by the resolution and what is not. The summary of the Attorney-General’s advice is clear, because enforcing the no-fly zone is clearly allowed by the UN resolution. However, we need to know not only that what we are doing is legal but how far, legally, we are entitled to go. We must not leave a chink that will let people say, “The resolution allowed some things, true, but not this.”

Fifthly, will the Treasury be generous? Will my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer allow the Ministry of Defence to concentrate, at least for the next few months, on these operations rather than on its desperate scrabble to find the extra £1 billion, for this year alone, to which it was committed in the strategic defence and security review but which it still has not identified?

Sixthly, does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agree that ruling out the use of occupation forces does not rule out the use of ground forces? I am talking not just about search and rescue helicopters, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) mentioned during the Prime Minister’s speech, but about identifying targets that are free of civilians.

Seventhly, there is the difficult question of whether the ceasefire applies to the rebels. If the rebels try, in response to breaches of the ceasefire by Gaddafi, to retake areas that he has taken, should we use military force to stop them? That would seem a bit strange, but does the UN resolution permit the facilitation of arms supplies to the alternative Government, and if so should the United Kingdom be helping to provide that?

These are things that we do not know, as a result of the UN resolution, and we might need a further resolution to clarify things. Many more issues will arise, but I support this action. The House will not give a blank cheque to this action, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s willingness to return to the House to keep us updated on something that is moving very fast.

17:47

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

It is an honour to follow the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), and the Vice-Chairman, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), both of whom I am pleased to serve with on the Committee. We support the Government on the actions they have taken in Libya, which are an appropriate response to the situation. It is often said that for evil to flourish all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing, but doing nothing was not an option for the Government and the international community in this case. In examining the decision that has been taken and the motion we are being asked to support this evening, I feel there are clear differences between the decision we are taking and previous decisions that we have been asked to take. I speak as someone who has consistently supported Governments in the past in the difficult decisions they have had to take about going to war.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

May I correct the hon. Gentleman? This House is not taking any decisions: the Government have already taken a decision and have graciously allowed us a debate today. Does he agree that if we are to ensure that we stay properly informed, which the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have both talked about, we need to resolve the question of the House’s rights in respect of when this country goes to war? As we are the elected Chamber there ought to be something in our Standing Orders or in the Cabinet manual or some other place that gives the Chamber the right to be consulted before or after an action takes place.

[Mr Donaldson]

I was present on Friday when the Prime Minister made his statement to the House. We had a lengthy discussion at that stage and Members had an opportunity to put their views before we went into the conflict in Libya. I believe that the commitment of the Government in allowing us this debate takes us a further step along that road, and the Prime Minister has given a commitment to keep the House informed of further developments, so at least there are those indications that the Government are taking the House and the views expressed in it seriously.

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the diplomatic service was mentioned earlier—on the excellent work done in building the international coalition. Again, that is a mark of the lessons that we have learned from the past. The Government have demonstrated a willingness to learn those lessons, and that is perhaps why there is broader consensus today, not just in this House, but in the nation, on the actions that the Government are taking, and we welcome that.

Right hon. and hon. Members have asked: what is the endgame? What will we regard as success? I accept entirely the position, articulated by the Prime Minister, that we do not know what the outcome will be. At the weekend, I had the joy of watching that excellent film, “The King’s Speech”. When Chamberlain announced that Britain was at war with Germany, it struck me that it was a recognition that appeasement had not worked, but no one at that time knew the outcome of the decision to go to war. Very often, that is the case with war: one simply does not know what the outcome will be.

Leadership is about taking decisions that have an element of risk attached and where there is an element of uncertainty about the outcome, but at least in this instance, given the broad international support, there is a prospect of ensuring that we minimise the loss of life in Libya. We have seen ample evidence of that already in Benghazi and other places, where people really were facing a very dangerous situation. We welcome the fact that intervention has already had success, in so far as it has halted Gaddafi in his tracks and preserved human life. What success will look like beyond that remains to be seen. It is for the people of Libya to determine their future, obviously with international assistance and support.

That brings me to my second point, which touches on the comments that the Vice-Chairman of the Defence Committee made about our capacity to do this kind of thing in future. In the strategic defence and security review and the national security strategy, we talk about the need to develop and strengthen our involvement in conflict prevention and resolution. If our armed forces are to be smaller in future, greater effort and resource needs to be put into preventing such conflicts in future, because our involvement in international affairs is often marked by the need to intervene to prevent human tragedy when conflict is well under way. It is right that we do that, but we also need to look to a future where conflict prevention is given greater priority in what the Government seek to do.

Forgive me if this sounds parochial—it is not—but the Prime Minister referred to the involvement of Colonel Gaddafi in supporting international terrorism. We know what Colonel Gaddafi is capable of; he has made it clear that if he remains in power—that is a possible outcome—he will seek retribution against those who acted against him. We in this country know what that can look like. We know what it looked like in Warrington, Manchester, Canary Wharf, Bishopsgate, Enniskillen and Warrenpoint, and on the Shankill road in Belfast, where the weaponry that Gaddafi supplied to terrorists was used to bring to an end the innocent lives of British citizens. We know what the man is capable of doing, not just to his people but to others.

Looking towards outcomes, I welcome the establishment of the dedicated team in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I know that the Foreign Secretary has been supportive of its work. If there is regime change, and Gaddafi is removed by his people, I hope that we will pursue a settlement on behalf of victims in the United Kingdom who suffered as a result of Gaddafi’s state-sponsored terrorism. If we are to send our armed forces halfway across the world to protect the lives of people in Libya, the least that we can expect is that any new Libyan Government will honour the obligations on the people of Libya to recognise the suffering of innocent civilians in this country as a result of what Gaddafi and his surrogates did here, and to support the efforts of the victims to secure a settlement that recognises their suffering.

17:54

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

This is not something that began in Libya, and it will not end in Libya. It came out of a regional situation. It is a response primarily to Egypt and Tunisia. We should be celebrating, but with immense caution, what both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have supported because of that broader regional context. We are talking about not one country and one month, but a series of countries and 30 years. We have to keep our eyes on that, or we will find ourselves in a very dangerous and difficult situation.

The situation in Libya and the no-fly zone are driven, of course, as everybody in the House has said, by our humanitarian obligation to the Libyan people. It is driven by our concerns for national security and, probably most of all—this is not something that we should minimise—by the kind of message that we are trying to pass to people in Egypt or Tunisia. If we had stood back at this moment and done nothing—if we had allowed Gaddafi simply to hammer Benghazi—people in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria would have concluded that we were on the side of oil-rich regimes against their people. We would have no progressive narrative with which we could engage with that region over the next three decades.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly significant that both the Arab League and countries in the area such as Qatar support the engagement and the UN resolution?

[Rory Stewart]

I agree very strongly. That is immensely significant, but the meaning of that needs to be clear. The limits that the Prime Minister has set are so important to all of us exactly because of that point. The reason we need the Arab League and the UN on side, the reason we need a limited resolution, and the reason all the comments from around the House warning that the situation should not become another Iraq are so important is that we are talking about 30 years, not just the next few months.

Respectfully, I disagree with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell); the most important thing for us now is to be careful with our language and rhetoric, and careful about the kinds of expectations that we raise. I would respectfully say that phrases such as “This is necessary,” or even “This is legitimate,” are dangerous. All the things that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have done to hedge us in, limit us, and say, “This isn’t going to be an occupation” are fantastic, but they are only the beginning.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the risks is that it might be said on the Arab street that we would not be interested if it were not for the oil in Libya?

[Rory Stewart]

That is a very important danger. The fact that Libya is not just an Arab country, but a country with oil, has to be borne in mind. The kind of legitimacy that we may have had in Kosovo will be more difficult to come by in Libya for that reason.

The biggest dangers—the dangers that we take away from Afghanistan—are threefold. The Prime Minister will have to stick hard to his commitment, because it is easy for us to say today, “So far and no further,” but all the lessons of Afghanistan are that if we dip our toes in, we are very soon up to our neck. That is because of the structure of that kind of rhetoric, and the ways in which we develop four kinds of fear, two kinds of moral obligation, and an entire institutional pressure behind reinvestment. That is why the former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), is correct to sound his cautions.

What are the four fears? We can hear them already. First, people are saying, “We have to be terrified of Gaddafi. He is an existential threat to global security.” That is the fear of the rogue state. The second fear is the fear of the failed state. Gaddafi is making that argument himself: “If I collapse, al-Qaeda will come roaring into Libya.” The third fear that people are beginning to express is a fear of neighbours. They are already beginning to say, “If this collapses, refugees will pour across the borders into other countries.” The fourth fear is fear for ourselves: fear for our credibility, and fear that we might look ridiculous if, in response to our imprecations or threats, Gaddafi remains. We have seen the same fears in Vietnam, where people talked about the domino theory. We have seen the same fears in Iraq when people talked about weapons of mass destruction. We have seen the same fears in Afghanistan, where people worried that, if Afghanistan were to topple, Pakistan would topple and mad mullahs would get their hands on nuclear weapons.

Those are all the same fears, and the same sense of moral obligation. We do not need to be able to name two cities in Libya to be able to talk about two kinds of moral obligation: our moral obligation to the Libyan people, and our moral obligation because we sold arms to the Libyans in the past. This is very dangerous, and we must get away from that kind of language and into the kind of language that is humble, that accepts our limits, and allows us to accept that we have a moral obligation to the Libyan people but that it is a limited one because we have a moral obligation to many other people in the world, particularly to our own people in this country.

Of course we have a national security interest in Libya, but we have such an interest in 40 or 50 countries around the world, and we must match our resources to our priorities. The real lesson from all these conflicts is not, as we imagine, that we must act. The real lesson is not just our failure, but our failure to acknowledge our failure, and our desire to dig ever deeper. It is our inability to acknowledge that, in the middle east, many people will put a very sinister interpretation on our actions. It is also our failure to acknowledge that “ought” implies “can”. We do not have a moral obligation to do what we cannot do. We have to consider our resources rather than our desires.

What does that mean? This is easy for someone on the Back Bench to say, and much more difficult for a Prime Minister or other leader to say. How do we set a passionately moderate rhetoric? How do we speak to people to support something that is important? How do we acknowledge the moral obligation and the national security questions, but set the limits so that we do not get in too deep? I suggest that we need to state this in the most realistic, limited terms. First, we need to say that our objective is primarily humanitarian: it is to decrease the likelihood of massacre, ethnic cleansing and civil war, and to increase the likelihood of a peaceful political settlement. Secondly, we will try, in so far as it is within our power to do so, to contain and manage any threat from Libya. Finally, we will deliver development and humanitarian assistance. In the end, however, the real message that we are passing on through limited rhetoric is not to the people of Britain but to the people of the middle east over the next 30 years.

18:03

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak after one of the best speeches that I have ever heard in the House. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) speaks with a passion matched only by his personal experience and absolute expertise, so it is with slight trepidation that I follow him in the debate. I want to build on what he has said, however, because I agree with much of it.

I think that everyone here agrees that we must take on our responsibility to protect civilian lives in Libya, that the criteria for intervention has been met and that this is being done on a legal basis. We agree that Gaddafi has violated the conditions of sovereignty that would allow him to protect his own people. He has gone so far against them that it is now incumbent on us to take some kind of action. I also give my absolute support to the United Nations, and to the international community, in helping Libyan civilians. Having said all that, it is a very big leap from the question of whether we should act to that of how we should act. We must not conflate the two.

I believe that we are also clear about the outcomes that we want. We all agree that we want to stop Gaddafi slaughtering civilians in Libya, but how we should do that has not been adequately explored, and the consequences of our actions have not been well enough thought through. Being well motivated and well meaning is not enough to go to war. We must consider carefully all the options and all the possible consequences of our actions. We hope that the outcome will spell liberation, democracy, self-determination, stability and greater security in the world. We are all keeping our fingers crossed that that will happen.

However, north Africa and the middle east have complexities that none of us fully understands. The outcome of the unrest in the region is unknowable. We know one thing, however. I shall take the advice of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and be careful about the words I use; I shall not call Gaddafi “mad”. He clearly has some mental health issues, however, and he is a terrifying human being, but he is not stupid. This weekend, he announced on television:

“We promise you a long drawn-out war with no limits”.

He knows that a long war would suit him. We must consider the consequences if the no-fly zone fails. We must also consider the consequences if our own air attacks kill Libyan civilians. Importantly, we must consider the consequences of the Arab League withdrawing its support. It is already wobbling, and if it does not fully support our actions, the consequences could be devastating.

Most importantly of all, we must have an idea of what success looks like. On the “Today” programme this morning, the Foreign Secretary said:

“I think we will know a ceasefire when we see it”.

I do not envy him his job, but those words did not fill me with complete confidence that we know what we are doing. Unless we have a clear idea of all the possible consequences of our actions, including the possibility that what we are doing might make things worse for Libyan civilians, we as a country and as part of the international community will open ourselves up to the accusation that we are acting in order to be seen to be doing something, rather than doing the right thing to protect Libyan civilians.

I will vote for the motion tonight because I see it as a vote of support for Libyan civilians and a vote of support for taking on our responsibility to protect them, but I will do it nervously. I wish the Government well, and I know that there will be very difficult times ahead, but we, the international community, are starting a war. We are doing it for the right reasons, but I do not think that we are clear enough about where it will end.

18:07

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Eight years ago, this House discussed intervention in Iraq. I was not a Member of Parliament at the time. Instead, I was marching on the streets of Glasgow to protest against that war, along with more than 1 million other people across the United Kingdom. I deeply regret not only the UK’s role in Iraq but the legacy that it has left for UK foreign policy. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) so eloquently pointed out, it has undoubtedly made the role of our diplomats much harder in their negotiations with other countries around the world. It has undermined much of what they do. It has also, understandably, made the Government and the British public more sensitive about any UK military action, even when it has United Nations support.

Libya is no Iraq, however. The two are worlds apart. Not only is international action in this case legally justified, but I believe that it is morally right to act to protect Libyan civilians. The situation is very different. In Libya, people are demanding action and the regional neighbours support them. Indeed, the Arab League’s request for help is highly significant.

[Mr Burrowes]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important not to pigeonhole the support from the Council of the League of Arab States? Its decision of 12 March called not only for a no-fly zone to be imposed, but for the establishment of

“safe areas in places exposed to shelling as a precautionary measure that allows the protection of the Libyan people and foreign nationals residing in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”.

Does not that provide the important basis for United Nations resolution 1973 to take all necessary measures, including the bombardment, to protect civilians?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and the Arab League also made it clear that it did not want a foreign invasion force. It is important that that is explicitly outlined in UN Security Resolution 1973.

As has been discussed, a new principle has developed in the international community of the UN’s responsibility to protect. That was not in place eight years ago, and would not have applied in any way to the situation in Iraq. It is hugely positive that the Security Council is prepared to take action under its responsibility to protect, to make it a meaningful concept, and not just warm words. Turning to the scope of the resolution, it is incredibly helpful that it is not just about a narrow no-fly zone, and represents the need to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack. Indeed, it explicitly excludes a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.

This is the most serious type of decision that the House can ever be asked to make, and it is vital that we are well aware of the risks of the action, of which there are many, including the risks to our forces and those of other countries when carrying out the action. We are taking action against Libya’s air defences to try to minimise those risks, but they are always there. We, in the safety and security of the House, owe a huge amount to those troops whom we have asked to take action in the name of the United Kingdom and, indeed, of the United Nations, and we commend them for their bravery.

There may have been optimism in Libya as the news came through of the UN Security Council resolution, but a scenario in which Gaddafi concludes that the game is up, and the Libyan pro-democracy campaigners celebrate a smooth transition to a free society is just a welcome fantasy—it is hardly likely to be the outcome. Even if Gaddafi goes, the building of democracy will be far from easy and, as is more likely, if he does not do so, the endgame is not necessarily clear and we may end up with stalemate. There is a further risk, if there is not a swift conclusion or a clear path to a specific end point, that there will be increased pressure on the international coalition, and it will be difficult to hold the consensus together. Indeed, as has been pointed out, it is perhaps not as firm as it was initially.

There is the risk, too, that Gaddafi will use the implementation of the no-fly zone for propaganda, and will try to paint a picture of the west as imperialist and imposing something on the middle east. From the UK perspective, with our forces overstretched in Afghanistan, we may not be able to react easily with military might to developments that would require a further response. We need to have our eyes open when considering how we will vote on the motion.

Not acting is not a neutral position, as there are huge risks in inaction, too, not least the bloodbath in Benghazi. Indeed, in Gaddafi’s own words, we have heard exactly what would happen. He said that he would show no mercy, and that he would track the fighters down

“and search for them, alley by alley, road by road”,

and house by house. In making that broadcast on Libyan media, he made it clear that his aim was to terrorise his own people and make them cower in submission. As I said last week in Prime Minister’s questions, we must consider the risk of the message that we would send other oppressive regimes around the world—that they could do whatever they liked, and that under no circumstances would the international community act. In what other circumstances would we act? In this situation, there is regional consensus, there is public demand for action, and there is a clear legal position. If we did not act in this circumstance, in what circumstance would we act?

What about the message to other oppressed populations? We have seen the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, and now in Libya, and I am sure people are watching around the world. If we did not act, we would send the message that if populations asserted themselves and demanded their rights, asking the international community for help when peaceful protest was met with murder, their request for help would fall on deaf ears and a lack of international response. What hope in that circumstance could any population have? We would run the risk, if we did not act, of turning Libya into an isolated pariah state, where Gaddafi would have nothing to lose, and would be even more dangerous than before, like a wounded animal. We would run the risk, a few months from now, that we would repeat the collective hand wringing by the international community that we saw after the massacres in Rwanda.

It is not an easy decision for the House to make, and it is not something that we should do lightly. Indeed, it is one of the gravest decisions that we will ever be asked to take as Members of Parliament. It is absolutely right that we scrutinise the detail, but I believe that the House will come to the right conclusion. Action to protect Libyan civilians struggling for democracy is internationally supported, legally justified and morally right.

18:15

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am speaking on behalf of my own party and of the Scottish National party. Unlike the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), I have been known in the past for not supporting military action. The Government have taken the right course of action in seeking a mandate from the United Nations. They have secured that mandate, and what is happening is within that mandate, and therefore lawful. I am quite comfortable with that aspect of things, and I acknowledge that a lot of hard work has been done by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.

It would be easy to say that it would have been better to hold a debate before taking action, but it was worth taking that action to avoid the slaughter of tens of thousands of people in Benghazi, so I have no problems with that either. Resolution 1973 authorises action to enforce the no-fly zone which, as we heard, is operational, so I take it that there will be a scaling back of aerial bombing by the allied forces for the time being unless and until it is necessary. If, for example, tanks move in against Benghazi, that is a different matter altogether. I am pleased that the no-fly zone is in place and, thus far, it appears to be working.

I would, however, pose the following questions about resolution 1973. Does full compliance with it inevitably require the removal of Colonel Gaddafi? If not, will the Government be satisfied with his remaining in power in some parts of Libya in future? We are concerned that the wording of the resolution, which appears to be quite clear, may become clouded, and we are concerned that the whole matter could be a smokescreen or shorthand for regime change, which would be unlawful under international law, but which became the main war aim of Messrs Blair and Bush, even publicly midway through the Iraq conflict.

This is a different scenario. No one wants to see a long, drawn-out engagement in Libya, so we need to hear from Ministers that there will not be mission creep, and that we are not sliding into another awful Iraq-style scenario. What are the Government’s war aims? When will they be able to say that the job is done? How and when will we know that? I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister will keep us updated, but we are concerned that the resolution might be deliberately interpreted to meet the aims of western allies, rather than being used for purely humanitarian aims. Questions have already been asked about the consistency of messages from the UK. Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said that Gaddafi is not a target, and that targeting him would be outside the remit of resolution 1973 and therefore unlawful. However, that directly contradicts what the Defence Secretary said at the weekend, so we need clarity.

What efforts have been made to marshal the humanitarian aid and assistance that will be required as soon as the conflict subsides. One of the awful lessons of Iraq was the absence of forward planning on humanitarian aid and reconstruction, so I should like to press the Foreign Secretary on that. Will the Government confirm that full diplomatic efforts are being made in parallel with any other action, as that is vital? The Arab League has reconsidered its position after its statement a day or two ago in which it opined that the action taken was beyond the remit of resolution 1973. Given its reiteration of support today, it is vital that Arab League countries are at the forefront of these actions and decisions—[Interruption.] No, they are not, which is why I am making the point. If they are not, Gaddafi will claim a propaganda coup, and allege that the allied western powers are in it for their own gain once more.

[Mr Allen]

Is not the right hon. Gentleman deeply concerned that in this exercise western forces are deployed in Libya, yet other than a promise from Qatar, not a single Arab state is deploying troops on the ground, in the air or on the sea to support that action? Does that not lead him to have very deep concerns about the position that he has just expressed?

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point. I am trying to be fairly succinct as we have only a few minutes, but he is right. That is of great concern. One hopes the Arab League will shortly convert its support into something more tangible; otherwise it will be a propaganda coup for Gaddafi and his type. That is a vital point.

I hope that shortly we will be there merely as peacemakers. I do not want to see Colonel Gaddafi in any form of control, but if he is to be removed, it must be by his own people, not by western firepower and intervention. The Arab spring has so far shown peaceful success in Tunisia and Egypt. Egypt’s new constitution received 77% support yesterday. However, other protests in Bahrain and Yemen have met with significant violence, including Saudi troops breaching Bahrain’s sovereignty. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who made the point about arms sales, but I dare say that is a debate for another day.

Suffice it to say that within the strict remit of the resolution, we in Plaid Cymru and our friends in the Scottish National party are prepared to stand by and support today’s motion. We hope there will be no mission creep and no striding beyond the strict wording of the resolution. I echo what has been said by others: it is not an easy task. It will be difficult for the Prime Minister and the Government, but in that task I wish him and the Government well.

18:22

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating Members on their contributions, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who made a wonderful contribution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who offered a characteristically informed contribution on the present situation in Libya.

I will support the motion this evening for humanitarian reasons. We have already seen the benefit of the action that has been taken on the ground in Benghazi. For that reason alone, I will support the motion. I congratulate the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and everyone involved in securing United Nations support for this action. In the light of Iraq and other events, it is important that there is wide support throughout the Arab world and the wider world.

I would like to step back from talking about Libya and ask what our foreign policy should be. It strikes me that the men on the Front Bench who carry the burdens of the offices of state are in power at a time when foreign policy in the middle east, as dictated by previous Foreign Secretaries and previous officials at the Foreign Office, is crumbling. It was a foreign policy based on the realpolitik that we needed the gas, we needed the oil, and we needed to deal with whoever was in power. We could forget the masses because they did not know what was going on. However, because of the creation of something called the internet—ironically, by the free west—the people on the Arab street, as we keep referring to them, know exactly what is going on. They can see it. That is why the movement has spread from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya to Yemen and now, I fear, also to Syria. Foreign policy needs to be rethought in the light of the fact that people now know what is going on. We cannot afford to be inconsistent or incoherent.

Our approach to Libya is dictated somewhat by what we think we are about as a country. We have a permanent seat on the Security Council, which gives us power, but it also gives us quite a heavy responsibility. We are a free nation. That raises the question of whether we should try to support others who want to be free. I realise the reality of our situation with regard to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. We are oil-dependent; we are still fossil fuel-dependent in this country. In 1973, after the Yom Kippur war, how did we respond to the subsequent energy crisis? We started digging for stuff in the North sea. How did the French respond? They started building nuclear power stations.

I wonder whether our response should be more than a response to the humanitarian crisis that could have ensued in Libya. Perhaps we ought to ask what our energy policy should be in future so that we do not feel uncomfortable about sanctioning the present intervention in Libya, which I fully support, but possibly not sanctioning intervention in Syria or the wider Arabian peninsula. We are somewhat compromised, are we not, by our dependence on the black gold. Perhaps we should not be. In view of the fact that the technology exists for us not to be so dependent, the sooner we are not, the better.

In closing, I want to share with the House a short anecdote. I was in Syria two or three weeks ago as part of a delegation. I went to the British Council and met some students who had had the opportunity provided by the British Council to learn English. My colleagues and I asked a series of questions about Egypt and Libya. Initially cautious, the students began to open up. At the end of the meeting, one of the students said, in answer to how he viewed the British Council, “It is my bubble of oxygen. It is my opportunity to express myself.” That stays with me. It is why I am happy to support the motion. But if we are to be consistent and coherent and to have the respect of the middle east, we need to start looking at our dependence upon oil and gas. Unless we do so, we will be having these debates over and over again.

18:28

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who correctly highlighted the importance of energy policy to all the issues that we are discussing.

I welcome the fact that debate is taking place today and that there is to be a vote. The traditions of the House have often meant that there have not been parliamentary votes on such matters. I would have preferred a vote to have taken place before troops were deployed, even if it meant the House convening on a Saturday. We need to consider that for the future. However, it is clear that there will be a full debate today, and there was a statement on Friday, when many aspects of the issue were discussed.

I have found the issues very difficult. I am disappointed that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was not selected, as it highlights some of the matters that concern me. Yet again, arms that have been supplied by British companies are being used against people internally by tyrants, and weapons that British companies have sold to Libya will probably be used against our own troops. We need to review that again and look at our policy on the arms trade,

The Arab world is going through revolutionary change, with uprisings in country after country, and we must look at the issue in that context. I of course support all those struggling for democracy and against tyrants and have always been appalled by the actions of Gaddafi. I fully understand the unwillingness to stand aside while the innocent are being slaughtered and so have every sympathy with those who feel that we must intervene. However, I have concerns about what we will actually be supporting the Government to do if we vote in favour of the motion. That is partly because the conflict is taking place in north Africa and previous interventions in that part of the world, including the middle east, have been very difficult for the west and inspired huge amounts of hatred towards it. The debate might be quite different if the conflict was taking place in a different part of the world.

I am also concerned because I genuinely fear that we might be entering what could be a long war. The wording of the UN resolution is very wide, and the reference to “all necessary measures” in some ways gives a blank cheque to the powers taking action. In other ways, however, it probably does not give those taking action the ability to do what they really need to do in Libya. We could easily end up being involved in a very long conflict but with Gaddafi remaining in power.

Although I find the issue difficult and think that there are many potential difficulties, as has been highlighted by colleagues on both sides of the House, I think that the key to the decisions we take over the coming period must be our relationships not only with Arab states, but with Arab peoples. Like many colleagues, I am particularly interested in what the Muslim and Arab communities in this country are saying at the moment and what Arab states and peoples will be saying over the coming period. In my short contribution, I wish to encourage Members on the Treasury Bench to listen to the messages coming from the middle east and north Africa, which should be taken on board when key strategic decisions are made.

I have deep concerns about this action and particularly about how long this war might last. We must look at it in the context of the war on terror. My fear is that if we continue with military action, particularly if it is conducted over an extended period by western powers, we might be giving ammunition to the fundamentalists in the middle east and the Arab world whose values are very different from those held by us in this House.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Immediately after the 1986 bombing of Tripoli there were an estimated 12 coups against Colonel Gaddafi. He is deeply despised by the Libyan armed forces. Does the hon. Lady not share my confidence that, given an equal footing and western intervention, he will soon be toppled by his own people?

[Katy Clark]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and very much hope that he is correct. We must be very alert to the extent to which what we are seeing in Libya is a genuine uprising by all the people or a civil war. When we look at what has happened in Iraq in particular, and also in Afghanistan, we will see that many in the west do not understand the tribal loyalties, but we must be very alert to them.

I have deep concerns about what is happening and very much hope, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has indicated, that it will lead quickly to the overthrow of Gaddafi. Like many people in this country, I am concerned that that might not be straightforward, because previous conflicts have not been. There will be serious political and financial implications if the House decides to endorse the Government’s motion. Domestically, we are seeing huge cuts in public spending, including spending on military equipment. We need to think carefully about the extent to which our constituents will feel that a long and expensive war, which follows on from previous conflicts, is something that they will support Parliament in pursuing. It is important that we take all those factors into account. I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place and that the Government are putting resources into looking at what is happening in the region, but I have concerns that, even if those taking the decisions do so with the best intentions, there might be consequences that we will live to regret.

18:36

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I have yet to meet a soldier who has been to war who would rush to another one. It is difficult to experience the horrors of war first hand and ever be the same again. Having been to three on behalf of the previous Government, I am a firm believer that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but I accept that the time for jaw-jaw sometimes comes to an end and we must act.

I join other Members in commending the Prime Minister for his speedy action to ensure that we have the United Nations resolution, but I am slightly concerned that there are many who breathe a sigh of relief and believe that, because we have the resolution and find ourselves in a very different position from that which the House was in when debating Iraq, Kosovo and Bosnia, somehow that is all we need to secure a successful resolution in Libya. I fear that it is not.

One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given was never to go into a room without knowing where the exit is. I fear that we have no clear exit at the moment in Libya. That is understandable; anyone who stood up in this House with a clear idea of exactly how we will exit the situation would be at best naive. That is no reason not to go into the room, but I fear that we will need further UN resolutions before we see the end to the situation. To be honest, I think that what we have before us will probably at best get us to a stalemate. We will achieve much by preventing conflict and unnecessary deaths in Libya, and the House should be proud of this country’s contribution to securing the resolution, but it will not be enough. I would like the Government to continue to play their part in ensuring that we have the grounds on which we can ultimately get the appropriate resolution in the United Nations to secure that exit strategy. It is absolutely clear that we must have greater involvement from Arab nations, because without that we will lack the general support required. I know that the Prime Minister will continue to do his bit to ensure that that is the case.

We often talk about learning lessons from the past. It is of course easy to point to the Iraq conflict and say that one of the biggest mistakes we made was to have no great plan for reconstruction and stabilisation—I must declare an interest as a member of the military stabilisation and support group within our armed forces—but the problem we face now is very different from that which we faced in Iraq, because in Iraq we were able to deploy boots on the ground to assist that stabilisation. We cannot currently do that under the United Nations resolution. We can learn the lessons from the past, from Iraq, and say that we need to have greater reconstruction, but how are we going to deliver that on the ground in Libya?

The cross-departmental stabilisation unit, which the previous Government set up, involving the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, is fabulous but under-utilised. Rather like three strands of a rope, it does come together and the effect that the three Departments produce by working together is much greater, but I believe very strongly that the unit must plan now, working concurrently with existing military operations, to ensure that we have in place such reconstruction and stabilisation. Otherwise, the window of opportunity that we missed in Iraq could well be missed in Libya.

I also seek from the Foreign Secretary, when he winds up the debate, reassurances that we are working very closely with the United Nations to ensure that any work the Government can do after this period of military action, to help to reconstruct and stabilise Libya, is done under the United Nations umbrella. It cannot be delivered solely by Western powers; otherwise I fear that we will lose the consent we have, as we did in the past with Iraq.

Looking forward, I am delighted that we are where we are today. We have secured the UN resolution, with much thanks to the efforts of the Prime Minister, but we must not take our eye off the ball. We must look beyond our current operations to ensure that we have in place the bedrock on which we can deliver, far more effectively than we have in the past, the reconstruction and stabilisation of Libya after the event.

18:41

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I wish we could have had this debate before military action had been taken. I referred to that on a point of order and do not want to dwell on it because time is very short, but we must establish that, when military action is going to be taken, the House of Commons should debate the issue first. There is no doubt what the result of any vote tonight will be, and there would have been no difference if one had taken place on Saturday, but it would have been better if the House had so decided.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if we had delayed such action any longer, which he wanted to do so that we could debate it in the House, people would have died?

[Mr Winnick]

The action started late on Saturday. We could have met on Saturday; we have done so on previous occasions. I have been present at Saturday sittings, and in my view that could have taken place, if not on Friday itself.

In view of the Security Council resolution, there is no doubt about the legality of the military operation. The Security Council has clearly carried the resolution, and the issue is not about whether the action is legal, because it clearly must be so, but about judgment and whether such intervention is justified. Much has been made of the Arab League and so on; incidentally, I do not know how many, if any, Arab League countries could be considered democracies. Be that as it may, I accept that none of them is quite in the same category as Gaddafi’s Libya.

Interestingly, the secretary-general of the league, just two days after the heavy bombing, is reported to have said that

“what we want is the protection of the civilians and not a bombardment of more civilians.”

If he is saying that at this particular stage, what is he going to say in the following days if the bombing continues? Undoubtedly, there will be civilian casualties, and yes, Gaddafi will make much of it, make propaganda—one would not expect otherwise. But one does not need to be a military expert to accept that one cannot carry out such military operations without civilian casualties. So while we talk about protecting the people and the reason—the justification—for the operation, we have to recognise that many innocent people are going to be killed or slaughtered, whatever word we use, because the situation cannot be otherwise.

We have spoken and debated from a western point of view, but I ask the House to look at the situation from the Arab point of view—not that of the Arab League, or the Arab rulers, but that of the ordinary people in Arab countries. They want a decent life; that is why the protests grew out of the suicide in Tunisia. Of course they want a decent life; that is one reason why there is such an influx of, and motivation for, immigration. We want a decent life, so do our constituents and so do the people in countries of acute poverty and deprivation. Human beings are the same the whole world over.

Let us look at the situation from the Arab point of view. In Yemen, the regime slaughtered 45 people last week. They were protesting. In Bahrain and Saudi Arabia there is repression, and of course Saudi Arabia actually took military action to intervene in Bahrain. Has anyone suggested that we should intervene against Saudi Arabia? Of course not. Even if repression grew in Saudi Arabia itself, or in Bahrain, one thing would be absolutely certain: the British Government would not draft a resolution with the United States to put before the Security Council of the United Nations. We know that.

It is interesting that every time we go to intervene somewhere there is a reference to the occupied territories: “We are going to do what we can for the Palestinians.” Yet the position of the Palestinians remains the same: more than 40 years of occupation, humiliating conditions, the wall, the deprivation of liberty, and the rest. Has there been any change as far as the Israeli occupation of the occupied territories goes? Not at all, but Prime Ministers—not just this one—always refer to it. I do not doubt their sincerity, but it is interesting as far as the occupied territories and the United States’ support for this current military action are concerned.

Only a few weeks ago, a resolution—

[The Prime Minister]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Winnick]

Yes, indeed.

Only a few weeks ago, a resolution passed by the United Nations, including the British Government, was vetoed by the United States. A moderate resolution, protesting against the illegal settlements, was vetoed.

[The Prime Minister]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Winnick]

Of course. The Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose speech I am listening to very carefully. He asks us to see the situation from an Arab point of view, but does he accept something that was put very forcefully to me at a public meeting in Qatar; namely, “You intervened in Iraq because it was about your security. Don’t you see that in Libya this is about our aspiration, our democracy, our freedom? Isn’t it time that actually you paid some attention to those things?”? Was not that the Arab street speaking, and not just Arab Governments? Is not that something we should listen to?

[Mr Winnick]

Yes. I take the point the Prime Minister makes, but at the same time what about the lack of freedom—the repression—in the other countries that I have mentioned? It is not just Libya. Yes, I concede the point—I have said so—that Gaddafi’s regime is so tyrannical, so bloody against its own people, and there was the arming of the IRA, Lockerbie and the rest of it. Gaddafi was up to his neck in Lockerbie, as well as in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. I have no illusions on that score; all I am saying is that, from the Arab point of view, they do not quite see the situation as we and, to some extent, I do as a citizen of the United Kingdom.

I have many reservations. I must confess that I am debating with myself. I do not often do so, but I do not see any reason why I should not. [Interruption.] I do not recommend it. I may be somewhat introverted as a personality, but I do not recommend debating with oneself. The debate I am having is whether I should vote against the motion, because I cannot vote with the Government. I will make up my mind, not because it is the Government’s motion but because of the reservations I have expressed. Having expressed those reservations, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to vote for the motion, if there is a vote tonight—there may not be. If there is a vote, I am debating whether I should abstain or vote against the motion, and I will make up my mind.

I simply say this in conclusion: the action has been taken and we are in, but I hope it is going to be very short. Reference was made to mission creep. I hope we are not going to get involved in the same way as we did in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We are out of Iraq, most people want to see the end of British military involvement in Afghanistan and they certainly do not want a new, long war. That is why I hope so very much that it will be very short indeed. The sooner it ends, the better, because I do not believe, at the end of the day, that it is in the interests of Libya or the United Kingdom.

16:59

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I join other hon. Members in sending my thoughts and prayers to our servicemen and women who are in operations over Libya and those who will be shortly, and of course, to their families.

As a former soldier, I believe that British soldiers, sailors and airmen should be committed to military action only reluctantly and as a last resort—a point that was eloquently highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) in a very moving speech. When they are so committed, that cannot happen in a half-hearted way. They must have the resources—and, perhaps equally importantly, a mandate and a set of rules of engagement—to allow them to do robustly and properly the job they are asked to do.

I believe that the House is broadly united, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), in believing that in the case of Libya, events had reached a stage where committing our military to enforcing the UN resolution is absolutely the right thing to do. Let us not forget where we were on Thursday afternoon. The momentum was with Gaddafi’s forces, who were advancing on Benghazi, and there was every indication that the city would fall in a matter of hours. Time was pressing. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has already read to the House the chilling words that Gaddafi himself read out over the radio about what might happen if the city did fall. Uncharacteristically, the United Nations Security Council not only passed a resolution swiftly but passed a robust one, and that robustness is very welcome. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on the role that they played in securing that very important resolution.

It is vital that we ensure, at every stage of this operation, that we operate at all times within the legality of that UN mandate, and that we retain the broad support of the wider region. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), I was concerned by the reports over the weekend that Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, had expressed some concerns about the UN mandate. Thankfully, he has now clarified his position, and the Arab League is firmly behind the action that is taking place. I am not surprised about that, given that its early call for international action was perhaps a key moment in allowing the UN to go forward with the mandate. However, this reflects the delicacy of the situation and the urgent need to include a broader alliance of regional forces in the operation that is taking place.

Like the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), who is not in his place at the moment, I was pleased to hear of the imminent involvement of Qatari assets. I believe that such involvement is essential for the wider legitimacy of the operation, but it demonstrates the need for continuing diplomacy alongside military action and the need for us to be nimble and fleet of foot regarding the diplomatic situation—the shifting sands on which we will be operating. We should not be afraid to pause or freeze military action, if necessary, should we lose the support of the wider region. We must not tip over from doing what we were invited to do into being seen to impose on the region our view of what the solution should be. If that happens, we should maintain our grip very firmly on the big stick while walking a little more softly until we can rebuild the regional coalition.

The right hon. Member for Coventry North East expressed his deep concern following the lessons from Iraq, and he was right to do so. However, the spectre of Iraq should not prevent us from doing what we believe is right and is ultimately in our national interests, as the Prime Minister made clear, provided that we maintain the legal legitimacy and broad regional support. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) is absolutely right when he says that this is just the start of the process and that we do not yet know how it will finish, but if we are to stay the course, we must ensure that we stay within the legal framework and maintain the regional support for what we are doing.

It is with some regret that I will be voting for the motion, because committing military forces to action anywhere in the world is regrettable. It will lead to dead soldiers, if not British, then Libyan; we must not forget that whichever side wins, there are casualties on the other side. I trust, however, that the majority of hon. Members will also vote for the motion, because we need to send a clear message tonight that we are united in this—that we as a House support the United Nations resolution, recognise that this action is both legitimate and necessary, and support our servicemen and women in the difficult and dangerous tasks that lie ahead.

16:59

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

I start, as have many others, by thanking the RAF ground crew and pilots and Royal Navy personnel who have seen action in Libya so far. In particular, I draw attention to the RAF crew who pulled back because of their concerns about potential civilian casualties. It is important that we recognise the professionalism of the RAF crews and naval personnel who are engaged out there.

I have had some concerns about this operation regarding civilians, the lack of a clear endgame, and our capabilities, but I have also looked at the potential of this seminal moment. There is a wind of unrest across the middle east. Elsewhere, we have had rose revolutions and orange revolutions, and now we seem to have a mobile phone revolution in which unrest across the middle east is generating a desire for change, openness, reform and greater freedom—a sharing of wealth and opportunity. It is important that we recognise and embrace this moment to take the opportunity of a new relationship with the Arab world. By backing the UN resolution and the no-fly zone, Arab leaders have shown a willingness to stand up and be counted, and to draw their own proverbial line in the sand. We must recognise that there will be a need for clear rules of engagement for all the participants in this endeavour—rules that everyone, including members of the Arab League, will have to sign up to.

The Chairman of the Defence Committee, of which I am a member, raised a valid point about the need to clarify all the circumstances. For example, what do we do if the rebels attack Gaddafi’s troops and he retaliates? Do we attack Gaddafi? That has not been made clear, and this House needs to know. We need to know who is going to take command and control responsibilities, which the US has indicated that it wants to pass on to NATO. Turkey is a member of NATO, and it is concerned about that. What is the Arab League’s role in embracing command and control responsibilities? Where do the enforcement of sanctions, the closing down of Gaddafi’s means of communications and the sharing of intelligence sit in our rules of engagement and our command and control agreements? The big task is going to be one of foreign policy and diplomacy. The Arab League’s continued engagement and movement into partnership with the west will not be easy to maintain, and it has to be one of our priorities. There will be tribal tensions between Shi’a and Sunni.

We have all heard the comments about Amr Moussa and civilian deaths. We must be up-front and acknowledge that civilians will die. A recent report by Save the Children stated that 90% of casualties in war zones are civilians. In the past decade, 2 million children have died, and 6 million have been permanently disabled, directly as a result of conflict. Our rules of engagement attempt to minimise such deaths, but the deaths will happen, and the allies must acknowledge that. We need to ensure that the International Committee of the Red Cross and all UN bodies have access to the war zone to monitor the situation so that we can have clear, neutral and impartial reporting.

It is not clear to me that we have an endgame. We know that there cannot be a foreign occupation force, but there is no clear indication of whether regime change is an objective. The strategic defence and security review states that we will deploy forces on the basis of a number of tests, including whether it is in our national interests. One of the tests is whether we have a “viable exit strategy”. No one today has clarified that exit strategy.

It has been suggested that we should not mention the SDSR. However, over the weekend, I have received many phone calls from members of the armed forces who feel angry. They feel that there has been talk of cuts and of loss of platform. That platform is now being brought into use. There is a concern that we must be up- front and acknowledge that we need our armed forces to take this matter forward for us. We in this House can agree to that, but it is our armed forces who are putting their lives on the line on behalf of the Libyan people and the people whom this House represents.

19:01

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

The more serious the situation, the better this House responds. That has been proved by some very fine speeches today. I wholeheartedly congratulate the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and their respective teams on their incredibly hard work over the past seven days. Many people were sceptical about the possibility of the UN agreeing to a no-fly zone. That agreement is therefore a great tribute to the diplomatic effort. The reasons for military intervention are clear and have been well rehearsed by Members from all parts of the House. I fully support the motion. I pay tribute to our armed forces for what they have achieved in such a short time.

I will turn to the future of Libya. On the BBC World Service earlier today, Rear-Admiral Chris Parry said:

“We really do have to get to grips with what happens afterwards. If we don’t, the military campaign will lose momentum, it will lack coherence and we’ll lose broader political support within the Islamic world.”

The pre-emptive action to establish a no-fly zone is almost complete. Colonel Gaddafi’s forces may well be starved of the necessary support and halted short of rebel strongholds. However, an impasse could follow. We must have a clear and coherent plan for how Libya can get to the next stage; for how the Libyan people, if it is their wish, can overthrow the Gaddafi regime; and for what might follow in its wake.

Before the invasion of Iraq, I criticised the then Government in this House for the lack of a post-conflict reconstruction plan. That was one of the most important reasons for the insurgency and violence following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and for the reconstruction of that country taking so long. It is vital that steps are taken now to ensure that that situation is not repeated in Libya.

Gaddafi still has significant capacity to defend himself and the so-called rebel force currently lacks the ability to overthrow him. It is unclear from UN resolution 1973 what more can be done in such a stalemate, as Members in all parts of the House have said. The resolution specifically excludes

“a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”.

An amendment to that resolution or a new resolution that allowed occupying troops to be sent in would be unacceptable to this House and to this country. There is no appetite among the British public to be drawn into another potentially lengthy conflict. We have been in Afghanistan for almost 10 years and our armed forces, particularly the Army, need a break from conflict. Likewise, I do not think that arming the rebels would be wise. The west armed the mujaheddin in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, and the consequences of those decisions are being felt to this day. When we arm one side, it is never quite clear where those arms will end up.

It is up to the people of Libya to push through a change of governance, but how they will do so remains unclear. I hope that the talk of a partition in Libya will be quashed at the earliest opportunity. To leave Gaddafi in the west and a new Government in the east would create far greater instability in the future, and would undoubtedly lead to further conflict.

Undoubtedly, the most important factor in planning for the future of Libya is support from its fellow Arab nations. The Arab League’s endorsement of the no-fly zone was clearly pivotal in securing it. We now need more countries to participate in it. I hope that this is the beginning of a process in which the UK, US, France and others work closely with the Arab League and Arab countries to consider the future of Libya. In the near future, Libya will need more assistance from its regional friends and neighbours. They can play a positive and constructive role in rebuilding the infrastructure of Libya and in helping to form a new nation. Ultimately, all members of the coalition need to speak with one voice to show their decisiveness and resolve to see this matter through. That extends in particular to the European Union and its officials.

I hope that this moment will represent a sea change in the Arab world, as the Prime Minister rightly said, and particularly among those leaders who oppress their peoples. After Iraq and Afghanistan, it was perhaps thought that the west would no longer intervene in the middle east under any circumstances. This action has shown dictators and tyrants everywhere in the world that they need to think twice before brutalising their own people and committing war crimes.

I end with a quotation that has been used by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), but which is apposite. As a former Member of this House, Edmund Burke, said to his electors in Bristol, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. It would be very wrong for us to do nothing in this case.

19:06

[Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

It is clear that without UN resolution 1973, there would have been appalling blood-letting in Benghazi. It is also clear that this is not another Iraq, because there is legitimate UN authority for action and there will be no occupying army. It is highly significant that the support has been gained, at least up to now, of the 23 members of the Arab League.

Having said that, and recognising that action of this kind invariably involves high risks, there are several issues on which this House and the British people want assurances. First, although the UN resolution is unquestionably strong, it focuses on the protection of civilians, as the Prime Minister declared repeatedly today. However desirable the end of Gaddafi may be, regime change is explicitly not covered by resolution 1973, contrary to the unfortunate impression that the Defence Secretary has given in a number of interviews that I have heard. There is always a risk of mission creep in matters of this kind, but if we are to retain the support of the wide coalition that has been assembled, it is vital that we are seen to keep strictly to the terms of the resolution and that we do not seek to put interpretations on it that suit our convenience.

A second concern is over the planning for the outcome of the conflict, which certainly did not happen in Iraq. As has been said, there could be a quick collapse if the Libyan military turns against Gaddafi, or there could be a long stalemate if the regime not only declares a ceasefire but observes it and holds on to what it retains in western and southern Libya. In either case, it is unclear at the moment—I wonder whether it is clear to the Government—how any intended outcome will be achieved. If Gaddafi is deposed or killed, given the strong tribal structure in Libya, what is to prevent the country from descending into civil war? How will law and order be imposed in such circumstances, particularly if the Libyan military retains its loyalty to the old regime—as some of it will—and refuses to do a deal with the rebels?

On the other hand, if Gaddafi is forced to end hostilities by the overwhelming force of allied air power, which is very likely, and opts to stay put in western Libya, what then? Will the words “all necessary measures” allow us to sidestep the arms embargo and channel arms to the rebels to enable them to carry on the fight, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) suggested earlier? The Prime Minister said on Friday that the resolution’s

“very strong language…allows states to take a number of military steps to protect people and harm those who are intending to damage civilians.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 623.]

But that cannot possibly justify arming one side when the other is observing a ceasefire. Equally, using superior allied air power to knock out Libyan army strongpoints if the rebels were to advance on Tripoli would be way outside the essentially defensive context of the UN resolution. In those circumstances, how would the stalemate be broken?

The third problem, which others have mentioned, is that of maintaining the all-important support of the Arab League, and not only during the initial ferocity of the allied onslaught.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would my right hon. Friend be sympathetic in theory to the idea of a future UN resolution giving authority to an Arab-led UN force, spearheaded by the Egyptians and the Turks, as a peacekeeping transition force to solve some of the problems that he has mentioned after the first episodes have concluded?

[Mr Meacher]

There is nothing to stop those countries joining a coalition now, and I am not at all sure that it requires a further UN resolution. I have to say, I think such a result is unlikely.

The continued support of Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, is critical to the allied claim that this is not just another western war against a Muslim country in the Arab world, but rather action against a tyrant who has lost all regional backing and whose people are rising up against him. There are already ominous signs that Mr Moussa’s support may be wobbling, on the ground that the Arab League saw the UN resolution as an essentially defensive concept. The Arab League must not only be continually consulted but actually listened to, and its needs and demands must be taken account of in allied action.

My last point concerns the precedent that is being set. Of course every case is different, but the western powers and the UN did not intervene when there were arguably much stronger cases for it in Rwanda, in the Shi’ite uprisings against Saddam in southern Iraq in 1991 or in the three-week war and extensive killing in Gaza. As many Members have asked, where will the new doctrine this time around lead?

The argument about selectivity and the application of moral principles has been widely voiced in the middle east. If protecting civilians against a dictator who is seeking bloodily to suppress demand for democratic reform is the prevailing policy, how can that doctrine not be applied to interventions in Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria or elsewhere? That question has been asked repeatedly, but it has not received an answer.

Those are all difficult questions, but I submit that it is better that they be faced up to now, before the initial jingoism—an unpleasant sensation that is being pushed in some of the media—perhaps gives way to dismay and disarray in the weeks and months ahead.

19:14

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Like all Members, I am worried and concerned about activities in and surrounding Libya. I am worried about the disregard for basic human rights shown by the Libyan army and the Gaddafi regime, and concerned about the potential longer-term commitment that we may have embarked upon.

I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary for their work and actions in securing and ensuring that the foundation on which the conflict has been drawn is very different from that on Iraq. It seems only a short time ago that many people were judging and criticising the so-called “loose talk” about the need for a no-fly zone. Some opponents even mocked the calls for one. Such judgments only show the risk of seeking to make short-term political points out of very difficult international situations, and I hope that Members of all parties will have learned a lesson from that.

Last Thursday night, the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 changed the terms of the debate. The success in delivering the resolution is remarkable, particularly bearing in mind the statements and comments made by some allies beforehand. The support of the Arab League was critical, and the change of heart of the United States was essential in delivering the consequences of the resolution.

None the less, we need to recognise the concerns and doubts expressed by those who abstained, and the initial comments made by the Arab League subsequent to military action, which have since been clarified, because they indicate how things could develop. The resolution has secured the legality of the actions that have been taken, but their legitimacy and longer-term consequences depend on maintaining the broadest possible coalition.

The delay by the United States in clarifying its position was damaging, but diplomacy won it over. In spite of the abstentions of some nations, dialogues with those countries—Germany and India, and even Russia and China—need to be maintained. It is unlikely that they will ever U-turn on their positions, but as the Gaddafi regime resorts to the most inhumane tactics we can only hope to win their tolerance in private.

The reporting in the UK and elsewhere of the action that has been taken has taken many different tacks. There have been some spectacular pictures showing how effective military actions have been in removing anti-aircraft capabilities and military hardware from the Gaddafi regime, and showing the positive impact that our forces have had. None the less, we should never be seduced by such stunning and incredible images. Our defence technology is impressive and astonishing, but judgments about using it must be taken in the context of the wider difficulties that it can bring in the longer term.

Not only must we maintain the legal case, but the moral, political and public cases should always be at the forefront of our mind. Colonel Gaddafi is a master of propaganda and of using it to motivate some of his civilians. Many Arab nations will be sympathetic to his calls. Outgunning Colonel Gaddafi by moral, political and public means in the Arab nations is as important as outgunning him by military means. The UN resolution means that we do not need to defend the political or legal case for our military action, as was required in the Iraq conflict, but we do need to maintain our case and win over doubters in the Arab nations. Many of those nations have significant military resources, and it is essential that they should be used to help us achieve the UN objectives.

Finally, I wish to reflect on 9 April 2003, the day when many of us were fooled by our own propaganda. It was the day when the statue of Saddam Hussein was torn down by the US forces and hundreds of Iraqis were seen hitting the structure with the soles of their shoes in celebration. They were described as “elated”. That and similar images and reports led me, and I am sure many others, to believe that almost all the Iraqi people were relieved at our military intervention. History teaches us that such things are not always true.

The Government’s actions to date have been exemplary, as has been noted widely by Members of all parties. It is up to all of us to ensure that they remain so, with the broadest possible coalition of support and the acknowledgment of the doubters.

19:19

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I welcome the debate today. It is important that Parliament plays a key role in deciding whether this country is involved in wars. I endorse the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made in an intervention about war-making powers. The House has a right to ask the Government many questions about the enterprise on which we are embarked and where it will lead. We should not be fooled by newspapers telling us, in a gung-ho and frankly offensive way in the case of The Sun and the News of the World, that the public are behind this. I am far from convinced of that. The public are concerned about public expenditure and the money that has been spent on the armed forces for the enterprise, and they are very worried about where it leads because they have been through the miserable experience of Iraq and they also have deep concerns about Afghanistan. It is therefore appropriate in today’s debate to have a serious discussion about where the action will lead.

An opinion poll in Metro this morning—I do not know how scientific that is—suggested that 58% of those questioned were against British involvement in Libya. Although I do not know how accurate that is, many people are very worried about the action. We must ask questions about the troops that we have committed through the Air Force. How long will they be there? What command structure are they currently under? That is far from clear. Several air forces are involved, and it is not clear who is co-ordinating them, who is in charge or who decides what targets to bomb at what stage. That is enormously worrying.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked several questions about cluster bombs and depleted uranium. Cluster bombs are illegal. Children are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the use of cluster bombs in the past. Depleted uranium was used in the Gulf war in 1991 and that has led to a high level of cancers in southern Iraq. I hope that no other forces are using depleted uranium weapons, because of the long-term effects.

What is the mission all about? Only three weeks ago, we were training Libyan forces and selling arms to Libya. British companies were happily trading with Libya and British universities were happily accepting vast sums of money from Libya until a few weeks ago. It is an awfully short time in our relations with Libya in which to go from hero to zero. The rest of the world may be concerned about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) intervened on the Prime Minister to ask about the endgame. One hopes that there will be an urgent ceasefire and some kind of political settlement in Libya, and that Libya’s independence as a state will be preserved. However, there is another scenario: a client state in the east around Benghazi; and a pariah state in the west around Tripoli, led by Gaddafi, and a source of constant conflict, disturbance and danger in the region. That is eminently possible, with oil companies trying to get their hands on the huge resources that are there.

[Mr Allen]

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the composition of what is currently called “the rebel force”, which is a catch-all for anti-Gaddafi forces? Many of us could support that as a concept, but is my hon. Friend a little worried that we could end up with something even worse than the current regime? Libya is not a repressed democracy. We have not spent the past 30 years building up a democratic base there. It will not be Nick and Dave who take over, but unknown people. We are not sure about the endgame and we should be careful what we wish for.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I do not know the politics, aims, ambitions or anything else of the people in Benghazi any more than I suspect he does. We should be cautious about going to war on behalf of a group of people whom we do not know or understand and of whose aims we are not aware. Many were Ministers in the Gaddafi Government, again, only three weeks ago. It is a very short time.

There is a danger that we do nothing about Bahrain because of close economic and military involvement, despite the US fifth fleet being there. There is a danger that we say nothing about Saudi Arabia because of the vast arms market there. The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, felt that Saudi Arabia was so important that he stopped the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the al-Yamamah arms contract. In Yemen and Oman, people are dying. They thirst for exactly the same thing. I was at a conference this morning of Bahraini opposition groups who made strong points. They said that they were not campaigning about human rights in Bahrain yesterday, but last year, the year before, the year before that and so on. Indeed, I first met Bahraini opposition groups who were concerned about the overwhelming power of the king in 1986 at a UN human rights conference in Copenhagen.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that action in Libya now helps the case for action in the countries that he mentioned later?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I do not believe that it does, because the economic interests in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain far outweigh any humanitarian concerns. I simply do not believe that it will happen.

However, we must use the opportunity to reassess our foreign policy, our arms sales policy and the way in which we get into bed with dictator after dictator around the world. We should also think for a moment about the message that goes out on the streets throughout north Africa and the middle east.

When Israeli planes bombed Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, I did not hear any calls for a no-fly zone over Gaza. F-16 jets pounded Palestinians, killing 1,500 civilians. We have to understand the bitterness of that period and the experience of the Palestinian people because many in the Palestinian diaspora, living out their lives in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt—all over the region—want the right to return home. They see the double standards of the west: interested in supporting Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people; currently intervening in Libya but doing nothing to support the Palestinian people.

We are in an interesting period in history. There was an Arab revolution in the 1950s, supporting the principle of pan-Arab unity. Nasser was one of its leading figures. That degenerated into a series of fairly corrupt dictatorships that still run the Arab League. None feels very secure when they attend Arab League meetings. Indeed, they go home as quickly as possible afterwards, lest there be a coup.

We are seeing a popular revolution for accountable government, peace and democracy on the streets throughout the region. We have been on the wrong side in selling arms and supporting dictators. We have not thought through the implications of what we are doing now in Libya. I suspect that we might end up in a Libyan civil war for a long time and that this is not the only occasion on which we will debate the subject in the House. This is the easy bit; the hard part is yet to come.

19:28

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

We clearly live in interesting times. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), because I share his analysis.

From Morocco in west Africa to Bahrain in the Gulf, we are seeing people grasp for freedom—proud people, many of whom have lived for too long under a veil of oppression. They are willing to put their lives on the line for the simple rights that we in the House and in this country take for granted.

I believe that it is right that we as a country use our military capabilities to stand with those who seek freedom and reform in Libya. Our values demand our active support for people who will no longer tolerate a corrupt regime that keeps them in ignorance, poverty and conformity. In the long term, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) pointed out, our national interest will be best served by standing with those who share our values and against those who seek to suppress self-determination.

Let us be clear. Gaddafi is a brutal dictator, who has systematically murdered his own people simply because they dared to dream of freedom from his oppressive tyranny. He has murdered children and women and men and boys. He has shown that he is unfit to govern, and he should go.

My thoughts are today with the men and women of our armed forces who are in harm’s way. I pay tribute to their bravery. They are fighting for peoples whose courage and bravery in standing up unarmed against oppression is an inspiration to many across the region and the world. I have no direct experience of war. In that respect, my generation has been luckier than most. I have studied international politics and visited parts of the world that have been torn by conflict, and spent hours listening to people who have served their country. I know that there is no glamour in war. If the House forgets that for a single moment, it should reflect on the powerful contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles), for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and for Keighley (Kris Hopkins).

Many in our community think that we should not get involved in other countries’ problems, but Libya is different from Iraq. We could not have stood by and watched Benghazi, a city the size of Glasgow, be wrecked by Gaddafi’s henchmen. Unlike Iraq, the UN is clear that action must be taken to protect civilians, and the international community has the backing of many Arab countries.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people in Benghazi could still be massacred unless they are allowed to be armed? Resolution 1973 provides a means for that to happen through the committee on sanctions. Does he think that that should be used?

[Stephen Gilbert]

To some extent, I share the hon. Gentleman’s analysis that resolution 1973 could institutionalise stalemate. Although our short-term actions are tactically successful, we need a clear strategic plan. The Government must address that, and I am sure the Defence Secretary heard the hon. Gentleman’s ideas about one such avenue.

There is no such thing as a good war, but there could be such a thing as a just war. My grandfather fought Nazism in the very desert over which our planes are now flying, and he was right to do so. In standing up to this brutal warlord using our capabilities to protect civilians, we are doing the right thing today.

There are, however, lessons to learn. For too long, it has been common to assume that people in north Africa and the middle east live under dictatorships and repressive regimes because they in some way choose to do so. Over the last few months, we have seen the end of the myth of Arab exceptionalism and an unprecedented grasp for freedom by people who no longer want to live under tyranny and in fear.

This is not the end of regimes in Libya and elsewhere that cling to power without the consent of their people, but it is doubtless the beginning of the end for them. Thousands of brave souls have been prepared to stand up and to lose their lives for things that we take for granted, such as the right to speak our minds, to meet with whom we choose and to vote for a political party of our choice. It is therefore right to stand with those people in their struggle.

I join hon. Members who have said that we need a full review of our foreign policy in the region and beyond to ensure that we use all our capabilities to stand with those who want the right to choose their own Government. We cannot act everywhere, but we must no longer condone regimes that suppress their people or supply them with the tools and training to do so.

I urge Ministers to make it perfectly clear to Gaddafi and his commanders that we are watching them, and that we will prosecute them to the fullest extent under international law for any crimes and atrocities they commit. Clearly, the action on which we are embarked needs to create more than a stalemate on the ground, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier. The steps we have taken have led to tactical success, but our long-term strategy needs to be clear. We also need to look beyond that to a concerted international effort to deliver to the region the benefits of pluralism. After the second world war, the Marshall plan lifted Europe out of poverty. We now need similar for north Africa and the middle east. I welcome the prominence that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to that in his remarks.

There is no doubt that we place a burden on our armed forces, with their continuing obligations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. We ask a lot of them, but they always rise to the challenge. Clearly, they are doing a fantastic job in difficult circumstances, but it behoves the House to remember that their resources are not infinite. If we want them to take on more challenges, we need to ensure that they are correctly resourced. I therefore welcome the use of the NATO command structure, which is a tried and tested vehicle for the delivery of no-fly zones, but I would also welcome further clarity on the rules of engagement that will be employed. We need to give our forces the best chance of defending themselves and prosecuting the UN resolution.

As this Arab spring unfolds before us, it is vital that we put our shoulder to history and stand with those who want the most basic rights—the right to choose their own destinies and to live without fear. My hope is that in all they do, the Government will help and not hinder the flourishing of this Arab spring.

19:35

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I found it touching that the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) and others expressed trepidation about entering a debate when we are sending troops into battle. I have been in the House for 14 years now, and I have done that on four occasions. I can tell them that it gets no easier. The more I have experience of conflicts and the more I understand the human suffering involved, the more I am committed to peace and conflict resolution, and the more I oppose such military interventions.

There comes a time in all such conflicts when the collateral damage—a disgraceful term—is reported to us, and evidence comes to light of families and children who get killed and maimed as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. When coffins draped in the Union flag come back, all hon. Members will ask, “Did we do enough to avoid the conflict? Did we do enough to ensure peace?” That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I tabled an amendment today. I appreciate that it was not selected for debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, but because it has been referred to, I should like to refer to it as well.

The amendment sought to demonstrate that we are using every means possible—straining every sinew—to gain peace, and not, as the Prime Minister set out, just doing that before the conflict. Often, the most successful peace talks are those that take place when military action has already been undertaken.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend says that we should do everything we can to avoid conflict, but the conflict has already happened. The people of Benghazi are under attack, and the people of Tripoli are suffering from the Gaddafi regime’s repression. In that sense, standing out of the conflict is also taking a position.

[John McDonnell]

I am saying that we should secure peace now that the conflict has started. I oppose Britain’s involvement in the middle east because we have a century and a half of involvement—in pursuit of the region’s mineral wealth—that is steeped in blood, murder and maiming. We do not have the credibility to intervene constructively.

Nevertheless, the conflict has started, and our role is to secure peace as quickly as possible. That is why the amendment seeks to secure peace through negotiations. Already, there have been offers of mediation, in particular through the ALBA group of Latin American nations. We should take that offer. The amendment also states—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Passing reference to the amendment is allowed, but we must not have a detailed debate on it.

[John McDonnell]

May I refer to those points to which the Prime Minister referred? He said that he would support the sentiments of the amendment, particularly in respect of ensuring that we keep civilians out of harm’s way. When I asked him about depleted uranium, he assured me that we do not use it, but we have used it consistently over time, and it has caused all sorts of harm to people in the middle east. This country, along with France, objected to the international ban on the use of such weapons, but I hope that the Prime Minister’s statement today means that we will now support the ban.

The Prime Minister said that he supports what we say about the need for a middle east conference. We need to engage to try to secure peace and stability and to promote democracy in the region. My view is that we need to do all we can to demonstrate our commitment to peace. The military action has already caused deaths. We do not know whether they are civilians, but the reports from Tripoli are that they are not dividing people from Gaddafi, but actually consolidating his support. The sight of the same countries that invaded Iraq killing Arabs again is of immense value to Gaddafi in his argument that this is another crusader invasion.

We have heard already that the Arab League is falling apart, with different statements coming out in different languages to hide the dissent. The UN is also dividing, with Russia and China, as we speak, urging that military action cease. They are not abstaining, but are convening the Security Council to try to end the action. NATO itself is displaying divisions as well. We have also heard statements from Turkey refusing to take on a longer term role. I have to say that statements in the House and by Ministers are increasingly confusing about the objectives of the military action. The UN resolution does not refer to regime change, but ministerial statement after ministerial statement clearly lead to that conclusion. Although the resolution states that there will not be a troop invasion or occupation, we now know that there is the potential for special forces and boots on the ground. That is all playing into Gaddafi’s hands by calling up images of a foreign invasion.

The charges of hypocrisy cannot go away. There is the lack of action in Yemen, Bahrain and Oman. I am talking not about physical action, which I would oppose anyway, but about the mealy-mouthed ministerial statements. There has been no threat to use the international courts against these killer regimes or to seize their assets, and there has been no threat even of diplomatic isolation. Neither has it helped that the images are still fresh in people’s minds in the middle east of our Prime Minister’s recent tour of the region to sell arms to these barbaric regimes. Finally, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North has mentioned the hypocrisy of refusing a no-fly zone when Gaza was invaded. We now face the prospect of a long-haul engagement in military action in Libya.

We risk being dragged into on-the-ground bloody combat, followed by a counter-insurgency struggle and then vulnerability to a lengthy terrorist campaign. It will all threaten the peace and stability of the region and have consequences for our own people and the global economy. That is why the message today from the Chamber should be that we seek peace, that we want to ensure the safety of civilians and that our concern is for the peace of the region and the promotion of democracy overall. I urge the Government to take up the offer of mediation from the ALBA countries. I urge the Chamber to send the message that we strive in every way possible to bring all parties together to seek peace. In that way, we might yet have the opportunity to restore some credibility to the role of this country in the middle east. I do not believe that that will be done as a result of the bombs and missiles now hurtling down on the Libyan people and causing death and destruction.

[Mr Allen]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you speak to Mr Speaker to ensure that the rights of the House are properly represented, so that in future, when a motion is put down by the Government, who are meant to be being held to account by the House, sufficient time is allowed for amendments to be organised and tabled by people in the House of a different view? We all have reservations. No one has spoken tonight and said that they are 100% certain about what we are doing. If we allow other voices and amendments, and if we allow colleagues to accumulate sufficient signatures, would it not be in order to have a debate with amendments that could be voted on and which could present a different point of view in the House from the choice we are presented with tonight?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There was an amendment on the Order Paper, but it was not selected by Mr Speaker. However, the hon. Gentleman’s comments will be made known to him.

19:43

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If I am to follow the good example of those engaging in genuine debate, I should refer to previous comments made tonight. Two of the speeches that have been much praised so far—quite rightly, in my view—were those from the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). They were praised not only because of their excellent delivery, but—one would like to think—substantially because of their comment and analysis. If I try to marry those two speeches, I come out with two propositions: intervention should be for humanitarian purposes only, and strict limits should be imposed on how we become militarily involved.

As will emerge as I develop my argument, I believe that the most likely result of such an approach—if it is what hon. Members want—would be not dissimilar to what was set out by the hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). That might surprise some hon. Members. I shall come back to that point in a moment, but I wish people to think about it a little. It is one thing to praise a speech about having limited objectives in a war, but it is quite another to proceed as if there will not be consequences of limiting those objectives in the way that we should rightly limit them.

In the early 1990s, when I was not in the House, I looked on in horror at what was happening in Bosnia, and I was particularly ashamed of the fact that our Foreign Secretary of the day, when asked why we would not go to the help of the moderate Bosnian Muslims and would not even allow them to have the weapons with which to defend themselves, replied that we did not wish to create a “level killing field”. I thought that that was a disgraceful statement.

[Mr Cash]

Yes, disgraceful.

[Dr Lewis]

My hon. Friend agrees that it was disgraceful.

I looked on with horror and impotence while the world and Britain stood by. Then, partly for that reason, in 1998, during my first term in the House, I was one of just three Conservative Members—if I remember correctly, the others were the now Lord Cormack and the late Michael Colvin—who actually called for military intervention against Milosevic in relation to Kosovo a year before the intervention actually happened. I therefore have a track record of supporting humanitarian intervention. I say that because I have grave reservations about what we are doing now. I will—very reluctantly—support the motion in the Lobby tonight, but I want hon. Members to realise the consequences that are likely to follow.

In such a situation, we need to ask ourselves four questions: who should intervene, how should the intervention be carried out, who should pay for it and what will be the result? Who should intervene? The answer is: those who are willing and strong enough to do so. How should it be done? Here we get to the nub of the matter. We can intervene in such a conflict by using what has been called air power but is actually the use of precision weapons from the sea and the air. We can intervene using such power only, which is what we say we are doing, or by introducing troops. If we confine ourselves to using precision weapons from sea platforms or the air, we should not expect Colonel Gaddafi to disappear.

The question of who should pay is terribly important. Throughout our years of opposition, we said that Labour Governments had let defence fall too far down our list of priorities. However, I have not noticed us proposing to increase the proportion of GDP we spend on defence. I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is here. I have asked the Foreign Secretary this question twice, and he has brushed me off twice. Will this campaign be paid for out of the existing core defence budget, or will it be met by additional funds from the Treasury reserve? We have to know.

Finally, what will be the outcome? It will be entirely dependent on whether ground troops get involved. We have ruled out ground troops. If the Arab League wishes to see Gaddafi removed, it may have to supply ground troops, but we will not do so. We are left with a situation in which we are making a limited intervention to stop people being massacred. However, let us not fool ourselves into thinking that this will result in the removal of Colonel Gaddafi. Unless there is a coup or ground troop involvement by Arab states, Colonel Gaddafi will probably survive. He will lose control of part of the area, and we will have a long-term commitment to look after the remainder of Libya. For that, payment must be found.

19:50

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), because he gave what I thought was his version of Tony Blair’s Chicago speech of 1999. Where Tony Blair had five criteria, the hon. Gentleman seems to have four, but the consequence would still be the interventionist view that I know he has held for many years.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be so pessimistic about the consequences of what is happening in Libya. None of us can predict what will happen. He is quite right that the Gaddafi regime may persist for some time, in some form or other. He is also possibly right about the alternative outcome of partition, which other hon. Members have mentioned. Another view is that we could be moving towards what might be described as “Somalia with oil”, which would be the worst possible outcome. Therefore, we in Europe should be particularly concerned about what is happening in Libya, because it is geographically on the borders of the European Union. Libya is not remote or a long way away; it is of vital, direct, national and European interest to us.

In that context, I want to praise the work of our diplomats in the UN, who have worked hand in glove with French diplomats in the UN to get the Security Council resolution. What has been done through co-operation between Britain and France, as the two European permanent members of the Security Council, is vital. Unfortunately, the Defence Secretary has left his place, but at least the Foreign Secretary is here. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary will know that I have given him his correct designation today, unlike when he appeared before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs last week.

I wanted to ask the Defence Secretary about co-operation between the UK and France on the defence front, because clearly there is a new understanding and agreement. If, as is expected, the lead of the operation is transferred from the United States, there will be interesting questions about where it should go. Turkey appears to be blocking any development of a NATO-based command. What will happen then? Is an alternative arrangement possible? Clearly the European Union is not capable of performing that role and, given Germany’s position, would not be likely to do so. What will happen to control of the forces that are brought together? There will be a continuing US role, even though it wants to step back, and those forces will include other European states, the Qataris and others who will enter the coalition. Britain and France will be working at the core of that coalition, but we need to know how that will work in practice. Perhaps we could have an indication of that in the winding-up speeches.

In the time left to me, I want to concentrate on what the development of the Security Council resolution means for the future of international co-operation. There were four groups among the 15 members of the Security Council. There was Britain and France, which clearly saw early that an intervention had to be made to stop the massacres and the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Libya. Then there was the United States, which clearly saw the same thing but, because of internal, institutional problems—and, I suspect, because the Obama Administration rightly want to take a multilateral approach to international politics, in contrast to the predecessor, Bush Administration—did not want to play the lead role.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Given the previous US regime’s role, does my hon. Friend accept that if the US President had been involved, that might have hindered our ability to get a resolution?

[Mike Gapes]

I do accept that, but I think the US Administration left it pretty late before finally making up their mind to move. It would have been helpful if the prevarication had not gone on for quite so long, but in principle I agree with my hon. Friend.

Then there was a third group, made up of countries in the Security Council that supported the action, even though many of the countries in their region were unhappy. Three African member states—South Africa, Gabon and Nigeria—voted for action, despite the fact that the African Union collectively has not taken the same position. That is significant. There was also Lebanon, representing the only Arab voice in the Security Council.

Then we have the fourth group, made up of China and Russia—traditionally, one of them would have vetoed the resolution, but they chose not to—and Germany, which, as we all know, has its own national view and history. Germany does not wish to put its forces in harm’s way and has always been reluctant to take a role in any international involvement. Indeed, I remember the angst in the SPD—the German Social Democratic party—even when it debated sending people to peacekeeping missions outside Europe. Then there are Brazil and India, which take a more traditionalist view about non-intervention, which is similar to that of China and Russia.

My point is that, because of the responsibility to protect, which was agreed in 2005 and 2006, and because of the way this debate has been framed, the UN has passed a watershed. The interventions to defend the Kurds in Iraq in 1991 and 1992 were made without a Security Council resolution. The intervention in Kosovo was also made without one, as was the intervention in Iraq, but today we have a new approach, and I hope that it is a model for the future.

19:50

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have some reservations about what we are doing. I am pleased to see the Foreign Secretary in his place; I hope that he will answer some of the reservations that have been voiced today.

My first point is a House of Commons point, because I received an absolute assurance from the Leader of the House two weeks ago on the Floor of the House that before we went to war in future, there would be a substantive vote in the House of Commons. When we went to war in the Falklands, the House of Commons sat on a Saturday. We have to establish the principle—this is not just a House of Commons point; it is a serious and important constitutional point—that in future when we go to war, the House of Commons should vote first.

Secondly, I have a number of questions about what we are doing in this operation. I voted against the Iraq war, because although it was ostensibly about dealing with weapons of mass destruction, in fact, as we know, it was about regime change. A lot of people have said that the current situation is very different, but is it? We are told that it is about humanitarian objectives, but is it not, in fact, about regime change, just as in Iraq? We need to ensure that our objectives are entirely and only humanitarian, and about protecting the people in Benghazi.

In one sense, the current situation is very different from the situation in Iraq, because at least there we were determined to go in and achieve regime change. Speaker after speaker has asked what we are going to achieve with the current operation. People say that we cannot always foretell the future and that that is not an excuse for doing nothing, but surely if we set off on a journey, it is generally a good idea to know the destination. Planes do not occupy ground. Missiles can destroy tanks, but they do not destroy regimes. Bombing Tripoli might bolster the regime’s support among the population there—indeed, it already has.

I have already asked the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House—no answer can be given—what will happen if the current operation just produces a stalemate. What will we do then? Will we be able to resist the moral pressure to get more and more involved, and to send in troops? There is absolutely no enthusiasm in this country for getting involved in a third war in the Muslim world. Aircraft can stop things happening—they can stop tanks entering Benghazi and I will support the operation to that extent—but they cannot make things happen.

A lot of lazy thinking has gone on along the lines that the regime was so unpopular that simply imposing a no-fly zone would make it fade away. Will that happen? Where is our strategic interest in Libya, which after all is 1,500 miles away? What are Egypt and Tunisia doing? They are its neighbours. Why is there not a single Arab plane in action at this moment?

We know that the first casualty of war is truth. The second casualty may well be a UN resolution, so that we are sucked into something far beyond what we have voted for. What are Russia and China doing, or rather not doing? Why is Iran silent? Is it because it supports Islamist irregulars in the east and is already there? Why would Gaddafi need to contest a no-fly zone if he can simply infiltrate troops? Is this a humanitarian war or is it a military war to change the regime? Will our efforts simply make Libya into another long-term brutal Sudan-type war?

It is often assumed that there are good guys and bad guys, but in fact Cyrenaica, in the east and controlled by the rebels, has always been separated from Tripolitania in the west. The two parts only became one state in 1934 and there has been a long-term dispute or semi-civil war between them for a long time. Indeed, in the 18th century Tripolitania invaded Cyrenaica and there were many massacres. History is extremely complicated; this region is very complicated, and we need to understand what is going on.

I was pleased to see the Defence Secretary in his seat. The old adage from Theodore Roosevelt is:

“Speak softly and carry a big stick”,

but we have been in danger of speaking loudly and breaking our sticks in two in the strategic defence review. Reading the British press, one would imagine that the whole world is hanging on to our words. They are not. I was reading the French press, and there was little mention of Britain. In Italy, no doubt, they believe that Berlusconi is taking the lead. There is only one capital that matters and that is Washington.

Oratory is not enough; we need air power. How many Tornados do we have? I believe that the strategic defence and security review was a disaster—as big a disaster as the Nott review, which was finally overtaken by the Falklands war. I hope that this operation overtakes the disastrous defence review. France has an aircraft carrier; Spain has an aircraft carrier; Russia has an aircraft carrier; the USA has 11 aircraft carriers; and we have to fly a round trip of 3,000 miles to impose our military force. By the way, all we have done is send three Tornados and two cruise missiles.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point, which I did not have time to raise. Although it is true that in this case we can get by from land bases, when it comes to the fuel costs of flying a single mission, a Harrier from a carrier would have cost £5,750, one from Sicily or southern Italy costs about £23,000 and one from the United Kingdom costs £200,000.

[Mr Leigh]

My hon. Friend makes the point. We could have had a carrier just 100 miles off the coast. The Prime Minister could have been sending our power. The Army is primarily a projectile of the Royal Navy and the defence review has been an attack on our traditional maritime and air power. I hope that we will use this operation to learn lessons about that.

In conclusion, I believe that we should review the strategic defence review, and that we should state firmly that our operation is simply and only a humanitarian exercise to save people in Benghazi and that there is absolutely no intention of our trying to achieve regime change.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend welcome, as I would, an absolute assurance from the Government that if they feel compelled to escalate our involvement in Libya, this House will be given the opportunity to vote again on this matter?

[Mr Leigh]

I have already said that that is a very important constitutional point. I know that I am just a House of Commons man, but most of the time that is all I have been allowed to be. There is nothing wrong with that, and we on the Back Benches have to say loudly and clearly to the Government that if there is any escalation, we must be consulted through a substantive resolution and that what we are talking about tonight is simply a very limited humanitarian operation using only warplanes, with no question whatsoever of our being dragged into third war in a Muslim country. I hope that point will be made loud and clear by the House of Commons.

20:05

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I apologise for my absence during the early part of the debate, but along with other hon. Members I had to attend a meeting of the Committees on Arms Export Controls. The House will probably understand that events in the middle east and beyond show pretty conclusively the importance of the work of that Committee, and others, in scrutinising UK policy on arms exports.

Many hon. Members have posed the very reasonable question of what we are getting into with the operation in Libya, and Iraq has come up time and time again. Indeed, the spectre of Iraq haunts us all. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq—I remain of that view—but I also hold the view that the issues we are dealing with today are very different. This action was not preceded by speeches about axes of evil. There have been no off-the-shelf neo-con theories in which the answer was clear in advance and all that remained was the question that allowed that answer to be put into effect—the answer being that we would end up going to war.

In this case, the entire middle east is going through a transformation that we have never seen before—a huge upsurge in popular protest calling for rights and democracy—and the response in Libya was not only violent repression by the Gaddafi regime but a chilling warning that there would be the wholesale slaughter of civilians in Benghazi not in weeks or months but in days. Parallels are always dangerous at such times, but the parallel I thought of at the time was not Iraq but something that I came across soon after I was elected in the early 1990s—the scenes in Srebrenica and elsewhere in Bosnia. It seemed to me that we could not allow that to happen again.

In 2005, the United Nations, as a result of the experience of Bosnia, Rwanda and other places, agreed that the international community did and does have a responsibility to protect. That is right and this is a test of our willingness to do that. Our objectives must be clear. The UN framework established in the resolution passed on Thursday is open to interpretation, but it is more specific than many we have seen recently. We must also be aware that events are dynamic. We need a much clearer strategy of how to go forward and how to respond.

I hope that we will listen to the wise words of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) about the need to be humble as well as confident and to be limited in our rhetoric and in what we know we can achieve. We should listen to what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) said about needing to think through the issues to do with stabilisation and our role in it.

We must be aware of the vital role of the Arab League and the Arab world. Without their support, the UN resolution simply would not have been possible, but now, after the events of the weekend, the comments that were made and the clarifications that were made on the back of those comments, we must have a much closer understanding with the Arab League about how we go forward. We need to recognise and put in place the liaison arrangements that will be necessary to enable and encourage the Arab League to play a much more active role in what transpires from now on rather than being cheerleaders for us. However, the Arab League must also accept that it has responsibilities so that not only Libya but Yemen, Bahrain and other countries in that part of the world can move forward.

We also need to understand, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) said, that we need to address not just Arab Governments but the Arab people. When they express their objections to what is happening in this part of the world, the term “double standards” comes up time and again.

While it is right for people to speak of the importance of pursuing the middle east peace process at this time without soft-pedalling, it is also true that “process” is not enough. The former Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom, Afif Safieh, put it usefully some years ago when he said it was not enough to have an endless peace process, and that what was needed was an enduring peace. I think that what the people of the Arab world are looking for from us to counteract the impression of double standards that we have given is not just condemnation of, for example, Israeli settlement building, but a resolution to do something about it; not just condemnation of death and destruction in Gaza, but action to ensure that 1.5 million people are no longer forced to live in a kind of open prison.

We need to address those issues, not just for the sake of our credibility, but to establish an understanding with the peoples of the middle east that will allow them to transform their region in the way that they want and allow far more justice in the world—and that will allow far more stability in our world.

20:11

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles), I will vote very reluctantly. Every time a military conflict takes place, death is involved along with ramifications for future generations, and everything hinges on what we say in this Chamber. We all know that this Chamber is the nerve centre of the country.

Although we are debating the motion, I really believe that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were right to take the actions that they have taken. We cannot stand by and watch people who are not that far away from us, geographically—on the shores of Europe—suffer as they are suffering. We are dealing with a man who, time and again, has violated human rights. Time and again he has killed his own people. He has killed people on our soil. People have been killed through his orders, indirectly, and by his regime, certainly.

Members on both sides of the argument have said that we should have had more time in which to discuss the motion, but cries for help have no time. Those cries for help are coming from 2,000 miles away, which is not very far, and we have to help people. We have to be part of this.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is listening to the cries for help from the people of Bahrain who have been murdered by Saudi Arabian troops, the people in the south of Syria who have been murdered by troops, or the people in Yemen who have been murdered by another dictator there. Why select these cries for help to listen to?

[David Morris]

Because it is the right thing to do; that is why.

[Michael Connarty]

Why select them?

[David Morris]

It is the right thing to do at this time and in this case.

Let me tell the House a story of which I have personal knowledge. A good friend of mine who was a radio officer on a ship jumped off it into the ocean when he saw a British destroyer come past. The military on the ship from which he jumped threw grenades at him, one of which hit him but bounced off and, thankfully, did not explode. He swam for his life, and our boys pulled him out of the sea. He came to this country, and was thankful for that. He has been here for nearly 30 years. Just think of that. Let me tell the House something else. When the students were bombing Manchester in the 1980s, that man lied to everyone that he was Italian, because he was in fear of his life. That is the kind of regime that we are discussing today, and the kind of regime that we want to sort out once and for all.

What else happened in the 1980s? Yvonne Fletcher was shot on our own soil in front of the television cameras. Some people have very short memories, but I do not have a short memory, and what worries me is that if we had not acted as we have so far, massacres would now be occurring in Libya.

This is not about the moral high ground. We pulled a mission yesterday—or over the weekend, or whenever it was—because civilians were involved. We do not attack human shields. We should think about what we are doing here. Yes, we are putting our troops into a theatre, but we are also saving people’s lives, and we are sorting out a dictator who should have been sorted out years ago. This man was responsible for Lockerbie. Do Members remember that? I do. He was never brought to book. Dare I say it, but some Members wanted to appease that regime—and here we are today, having to take up the mantle to sort it out again.

I was outraged when Yvonne Fletcher was shot. What can we do about all this? We can do the right thing. When Members go through the Lobbies tonight, they should think about what has happened in the history of Libya and how it has affected this country and the middle east, and they should do the right thing.

20:16

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this crucial debate. I also welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women in our armed forces, whose courage and commitment are beyond question. However, I think we owe it to them, and indeed to all in the middle east and north African region, to ensure that the role that Britain plays is beyond reproach or misunderstanding. That means that it must be consistent, that it must be principled, and that it must be likely to do good rather than harm. Measuring the military intervention that has taken place so far against those benchmarks, I am not sure that they are being met.

Let us take consistency. I have heard no serious answers to the charge that we are being enormously selective in the battles that we are choosing to fight. The Prime Minister has been asked whether military intervention in Libya signals a new direction for British foreign policy, and whether we might expect similar action to be taken against other oppressive regimes. Libya, we are told, is special. We are also told that the fact that we cannot do good everywhere should not be an argument against doing whatever we can. I consider it critical that if we choose to move in this direction, we should do so with clear principles that are as independent of self-interest as we can possibly make them. The fact that we are operating in the same week as invading Saudi forces are executing unarmed democracy protesters on the streets of Bahrain raises serious questions.

In considering whether our action is truly principled, we surely have to say why we think it appropriate to continue to sell arms to the region. I do not apologise for returning to that issue, because the Colonel Gaddafi who has been rightly described today as a murderous dictator has not suddenly become one. He was already a murderous dictator a few months, or weeks, ago, when we were happy to sell him tear gas, crowd control equipment, ammunition for wall and door-breaching projectile launchers, and plenty of other military equipment as well. In the nine months leading up to September last year, the United Kingdom issued millions of pounds’ worth of arms export licences for Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

We cannot ignore our own complicity in arriving at this point. We cannot continue to arm regimes that abuse their own citizens, and try to claim the moral high ground when addressing the conflicts that those same arms have helped to perpetuate. As recently as last month, Ministers attended the IDEX—international defence exhibition—arms fairs in Abu Dhabi, and in less than six months the United Kingdom will host its own arms fair in London, where, no doubt, regimes that abuse their own people will once again seek to buy the tools of their repression. I hope very much that the commitment that we are hearing today—the commitment to upholding human rights in the middle east—will extend to our policies on arms exports, so that we can finally not just review but end the policy of selling arms to repressive regimes.

We need to ensure that intervention has a better chance of doing good than of doing harm. The motion asks the House to support the Government

“in the taking of all necessary measures”.

Like United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, it commits us to a course of action that is dangerously open-ended. It does not define success, unless it is the over-simplistic success of removing Gaddafi, but if that is our measure we risk simply repeating the errors of our recent history. UN resolution 1973 does not appear to rule out the use of ground forces in support of the rebels or in helping to protect civilians. That is a fairly wide definition. Earlier in the debate, we heard an interpretation of the resolution that suggested it provided for the arming of rebels as well. It is extremely over-optimistic to expect an air campaign to be decisive; hence, presumably, the scope to escalate any campaign further. I believe that could be fatal to the chances of an early peace and I am deeply concerned about the falling away of support so early in this mission. I refer not only to the secretary-general of the Arab League, but to the fact that Egypt and Algeria do not want to be involved in this action, that the US does not want to lead on it and that France’s speed of action seems to suggest that President Sarkozy is motivated at least in part by his domestic concerns.

There is a real risk of our making matters worse. If there is a stalemate—if Gaddafi does not fall in the next few weeks—we could face a civil war, a partitioned Libya and even a potential breeding ground for al-Qaeda. Given the west’s colonial past, its history of adventurism and support for dictatorships in the region, its failure to enforce UN resolutions in Palestine and the legacy of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I think its motives in Libya will always be in doubt. The Prime Minister himself said a few days ago that a no-fly zone was not a simple solution but one of a series of steps needed to make sure that we

“get rid of this regime.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 291.]

How can that be that be read as being anything other than, in effect, support for regime change, which falls well outside the terms of the UN resolution?

I hope that in the Government’s summing up there will be further clarification of the inconsistencies between what is in the UN resolution and what is in the Government’s motion. I hope that they will review their trade and foreign policy through the screen of a genuinely ethical foreign policy and I hope that we can support the urgent convening of a middle east peace conference.

20:21

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate this evening. It has been a substantial and broad debate and many issues have been thoughtfully covered. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who is in his place, on the leadership they have demonstrated, especially in the embryonic formation and eventual birth of resolution 1973.

Just a few weeks ago, I was struck by the difficulty and pertinence of these issues when I examined a broadsheet newspaper. The front page showed a picture of an elderly Libyan gentleman with his arms outstretched, appealing to the west and asking why it would not help. In the middle was a cartoon picture of the Prime Minister—a rather pejorative one, I am afraid—with a little representation of Muammar Gaddafi sitting on his nose in the form of a fly. The Prime Minister was pointing a loaded revolver at the fly. That illustrated how difficult this issue has been. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) made a pertinent point when he said that much consensus has been built. I think that John Simpson has referred to the Arab League as a usually timid and, if truth be told, disparate body. It is not always easy to get resolve, but I am heartened by the fact that the Prime Minister and many other leaders have taken a lead on this.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Is it not striking to note that the preamble to the lengthy and comprehensive resolution 1973 determines that the situation in Libya continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security? The notion that this is an intervention in a domestic war is therefore wholly wrong.

[Paul Uppal]

My hon. Friend makes the point very eloquently and I could not agree with him more wholeheartedly.

We all have a personal history and personal experiences that form our political opinions. Just last Wednesday, I came to the end of a very long political journey when I took a group of sixth formers from my constituency to Auschwitz-Birkenau. It was a cathartic day and a very personal experience, which I think will stay with me for the rest of my life. On reflection, there were many lessons to learn about that journey but one thing was more pertinent than anything else in my discussions with those sixth formers—they wondered how we had let that tyranny and oppression come to fruition.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the holocaust in his speech, and I realise that some hon. Members might think it too much of a stretch to relate that situation to this one, so let me give another example. My maternal grandfather gave me many things, including a love of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, a mischievous sense of humour and a very personal story that strongly resonates with me to this day. At a time of partition in northern India, he stood against a mob who were determined to burn out their Muslim neighbours. They said, “We will go from house to house and there will be no mercy.” Those words have rung very loud in my ears over the past few days because they bring home what is right and what is wrong. To my pride, my maternal grandfather stood against the mob and said, “If anyone attacks this house, it will be an attack on my household,” and to this day that Muslim family is still in that village.

I have referred specifically to some personal issues and other right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted how difficult this issue is. I know that there might be charges of hypocrisy and that people are asking why we are choosing Libya and not Bahrain, why we are not addressing the situation in Yemen and why we are choosing to act in this specific situation, but we can only deal with the situation as it is presented to us. Colonel Gaddafi has shown that he is prepared to use his own people as human shields. He is prepared to go from door to door and show no mercy.

I appreciate that these are difficult issues, but it is absolutely necessary to do the right thing. The choice is simple and stark and has been laid out eloquently by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The choice, as in the terms of this motion, is to do something or to do nothing and I for one think that we do the right thing by acting.

20:26

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I support the UN no-fly zone and the early intervention to take out Gaddafi’s machinery for the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of near-defenceless civilians without apology. The world could not stand by as Gaddafi used air power, tanks and soldiers to inflict wholesale massacre on those fighting for a peaceful, democratic future for Libya. UN resolution 1973, which sanctions the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, needs to destroy Gaddafi’s military assets. We need to take out the tiger’s teeth.

I appreciate that some members of the Arab League fear that this could turn into a western invasion—some sort of neo-colonial crusade—but they and we need to remember that the authorisation of this resolution is specific and does not include that sort of invasion. We should work hand in hand with the Arab League with sensitivity to recent history. I also appreciate that we need an endgame in mind and a means to deliver that end game, but it is necessary to disarm that despot, who is intent on mass murder, even if we simply withdraw after that. If we did not have an endgame, but stopped the mass murder and then withdrew—not something that I would advocate—that would be better than simply standing aside and doing nothing, saying, “We don’t have an endgame, so let them die.”

The ultimate endgame would, of course, lead to a Libya at peace with itself, with a new constitutional settlement involving and embracing all its communities. However, that settlement must emerge over time from within, informed by Libyans at home and abroad. I certainly take the view that we parliamentarians should consult our Libyan constituents and communities, the Arab nations and the Arab League about our actions and about the shape of a Libyan future that embraces different communities—different ethnically, racially, and by gender—now, rather than later. Let us remember, however, that a United Nations resolution does not sanction ground forces delivering regime change, and certainly western ground troops would play into Gaddafi’s hands; their use would be seen as a grab for oil and as neo-colonialism.

We have talked this evening about United Nations action leading to stalemate. What would happen then? I have consulted quite closely a large Libyan community in Swansea, and they—or some of them, at least—are calling for an Arab-led peacekeeping force, probably spearheaded by the Egyptian army and the Turkish under a United Nations flag, after the disarming process to maintain the peace and oversee a transition. Obviously, that would need a further United Nations resolution, but it is something that we need to bear in mind when looking to the future.

Members have asked how we can justify intervention in Libya but not Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other places with repressive regimes. This is not a completely satisfactory answer, but the fact is that one has to do what one can. There are certain things beyond our limitations. As has been said many times already, if we cannot do everything, it does not mean that we should not do anything. I believe that the action reflects the United Nations at its best, working together, gradually stepping forward in history. It is a step towards building a unified world based on a fundamental respect for humanity, and a future that we all share. I simply say: let us step forward together, with care, to share that future.

20:31

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

I begin by paying tribute to the air crews and other servicemen and women who, as we engage in jaw-jaw in the House, are engaged in war-war of a most dangerous kind. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for keeping up the pace and securing the United Nations Security Council resolution.

Just a week or so ago, no-fly zones were not particularly fashionable. They did not have many admirers in Washington, the capitals of Europe, or indeed some quarters of this House, but as Harold Wilson observed, a week is a long time in politics, and I suppose that means that in diplomacy a week is an eternity, because we have now secured this United Nations resolution, which can bring real, not abstract, hope to those thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of people in Libya who might otherwise have been killed by Gaddafi.

We have already heard some voices in this House say tonight that perhaps we are going beyond the United Nations resolution, as if somehow it is just the no-fly zone that matters. It would be naive to suppose that we could impose safely and quickly a no-fly zone without first destroying targets on the ground—air bases, surface-to-air missile sites, and command and control installations. That will at the very least ensure that our aircrews, who are trying to save the lives of others, are best protected. It is also naive to suppose that keeping the al-Quwwat al-Jawwiya—the Libyan air force—on the ground will do the job. In Benghazi, about 8,000 civilians alone have been killed by the heavy weaponry of Gaddafi’s ground troops. Unless we can take out those tanks and heavy weapons, we cannot defend lives.

We are now in a conflict situation, and it is right that the House should ask questions about the Government’s objectives. There are four key objectives. We should enforce the UN resolution—that may be obvious. We need to protect lives, and that is what we are doing, not simply through the actions that we have taken, but through the actions that we have not taken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) said, the fact that we did not go through with the Tornado strike earlier today demonstrates clearly that we are keen to ensure that civilian lives are protected. Gaddafi knows that, and that is why he is using human shields, willingly or unwillingly, to protect his installations. That is why we must make sure that his armed columns do not get into Benghazi or other built-up areas, where it is much more difficult for our precision weapons to protect civilians while taking out his soldiers.

It is also important that we internationalise this operation as far as we can. The other day, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), I had the pleasure of meeting members of the Shura Council of Saudi Arabia. They said that they could not enforce a no-fly zone or deal with Gaddafi alone, and that they needed our help. We told them that we understood that, but that we, too, could not act alone and that they needed to be involved. I am pleased that Qatar is now becoming involved in the operation, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will use all his undoubted eloquence to prevail on the Saudis and the Egyptians to play their military part in the operation, so that we can send a message to the Arab world that this is not some sort of NATO-inspired adventure but a serious international effort to protect the people of Libya from butchery by their President.

We must also ensure that the public here understand that our objectives are limited and temporary. I spoke to some of my constituents over the weekend and, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said, there is no appetite for a protracted ground war or even a protracted air operation over Libya. I was pleased, therefore, to hear the Prime Minister make it clear that we will stick to the terms of the UN resolution. We are now engaged in the conflict. We have made a decision. The price of action is condemnation by some, but the price of inaction is the inevitable deaths of many. I think that we have, with regret, made the right choice. I hope that the House will support the Government tonight, and say that a few condemnatory remarks are a price worth paying.

20:36

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I hope that, in a few weeks, the House will be able to rejoice that Gaddafi has gone. Few dictators have committed so many acts of psychopathic wickedness over such a long period of time. Many hon. Members will know of his atrocity at Abu Salim prison in Tripoli, where he marched 1,270 prisoners into a compound, locked the gate and instructed his soldiers to open fire from the courtyard rooftops. The gunfire and grenades rained down for more than two hours until all 1,270 people were dead. But that was in the dying days of John Major’s Government in June 1996, and Britain took no action.

I welcome resolution 1973. To take action now is right, but it would be disingenuous to claim that action was not possible without Britain’s military participation, involving just three planes. The question is not whether action against Gaddafi is right but whether it is we who have the primary duty and responsibility to take it. It is the families of many of those slain 15 years ago at Abu Salim who began this revolution in Libya, inspired by others across the region who had dared to rise up and demand justice and dignity from their leaders. I praise their courage, but I recognise that this is a civil war in Libya. In that respect, it is categorically different from other conflicts involving ethnic cleansing and religious domination by one faith over another. This is neither Bosnia nor Rwanda. UN resolution 1973 has authorised international interference in a civil war in which there has been no genocide and no ethnic cleansing: no Halabja there.

The resolution purports to allow no more than the humanitarian protection of civilians, but all acknowledge that the Libyan population will not be secure from harm until the country is rid of Gaddafi. Coalition leaders, when asked whether Gaddafi was a legitimate target, have been equivocal in their response. In such circumstances, the rose of humanitarian protection begins to smell of regime change, and by that name it is not so sweet. This became apparent to Amr Moussa over the weekend when he said:

“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians”.

Perhaps the Arab League was too optimistic, because that is precisely what is likely to happen, if not by British and coalition missiles then by the rebels. It is naive to think that we can stop one side fighting in a civil war and not expect the other to take advantage. In a civil war, the tragedy is precisely that civilians are killed, if not by one side, then by the other. I do not believe that the international coalition will be even-handed in stopping rebel forces advancing in the same way.

The Prime Minister said in his statement on Friday that if we will the ends, we must also will the means. To will the means, however, does not entail the proposition that we must be the means. Many people in the UK are asking, “Why does Britain always have to get involved?” In two days, we will hear the Budget and the Chancellor will explain to the country why it is necessary to cut thousands of jobs to tackle the deficit. Those men and women who have been made redundant will no doubt sympathise with the Libyan people, but they will ask, “What has this got to do with Britain?” North Africa is not on our borders. It is not in our direct sphere of influence. Libya poses no direct threat to the UK, and we have no historical responsibility as the former colonial power, so why are we spending millions of pounds on cruise missiles, and endangering the lives of British soldiers to implement the resolution? It is ironic that many people asking these questions will be among the 17,000 military personnel who were judged to be surplus to requirements in last October’s defence review, when the Government cut £4 billion from the defence budget.

There is no contradiction in welcoming the enabling authority given by UN resolution 1973, which allows those who have a direct interest or who have historical responsibilities as the former colonial power to act in Libya and, at the same time, to insist that we have no such direct interest or responsibility. Today, we are debating this after the event—we have taken that responsibility before a vote in the House, yet no one in government has sought to explain the policy of the rebels, on whose side we now find ourselves. We know that they are against Gaddafi, and that is a good start, but we certainly have no knowledge that they intend to replace him with an open, tolerant, liberal democracy. The whole of north Africa and the middle east are changing more rapidly than at any time since Suez. Shi’a minorities in Yemen and Bahrain have been shot or silenced by an invasion from Saudi Arabia. Iran is known to be eager to get involved. Egypt and Tunisia have effected home-grown revolutions and even Syria is experiencing serious internal tension.

In that extraordinary context, the Government have judged it right and in Britain’s interest to involve our forces in military action. I pray that in a week’s time Gaddafi is gone, and I pay tribute to the valour of our armed forces, but I believe that the Government were wrong to ask this—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call James Morris.

20:42

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and everyone who, with patience and painstaking fortitude, has brought the UN resolution to fruition. I pay tribute, as other hon. Members have, to our armed forces who are implementing that resolution. That type of work is what protecting British national interests is all about. As other hon. Members have said, every generation needs to define what is in Britain’s national interest. In the modern world, our national interest encompasses security, humanitarian issues and commercial interests. It demands that, as a nation, we are prepared to build alliances, to contemplate military co-operation with other nations, and to deploy our unique soft and hard power assets. We are doing so in relation to Libya. We were right to act, but we were right not to act alone.

It was right to agree a resolution with clear parameters for engagement and with broad-based support, which means that, in this context, the international community can act without the United States necessarily taking the lead. It is an example, too, of Anglo-French co-operation, with Britain and France being seen to be in the lead. It confirms that we do not live in a unipolar world. Britain, in the modern world, with a new definition of our national interests, must be as flexible and co-operative as possible to protect its national interest.

As other hon. Members have pointed out, recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have given the British people good grounds for caution about our country taking military action and being involved in foreign intervention. When I speak to my constituents in Halesowen and Rowley Regis, they are concerned about our commitments in the world. They have become weary in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan because they saw no clarity about the missions or their end point. We must not make the same mistake again with Libya.

It is vital that we avoid the tendency that has characterised some of our military interventions in the recent past to use over-optimistic language and to engender inflated expectations about what we can achieve and, in some contexts, a downright delusion about the lengthy effort required to achieve a successful outcome when we make the grave decision to intervene in the affairs of other countries. That mindset and language characterised our initial involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our new modern national interest demands that we are pragmatic, realistic and straight with the British people about what we are trying to achieve through the resolution. We must see the debate tonight, and the United Nations resolution, in the context of Britain adopting a broader strategy towards the middle east, a region which in recent times has been subject to turbulence and unpredictability, forcing on Britain a posture of ambiguity in foreign affairs, and obliging us to live with that ambiguity and make decisions within that context.

Although we are taking military action under the UN resolution, we must also be determined to use our influence through alliances and through our soft power assets to help build functioning civil societies and democracy in the countries of the middle east. It is in our national interest to utilise those soft power assets simultaneously with making a focused decision to take the action that we are taking in Libya.

The resolution that we are debating tonight is clear and pragmatic. It has broad-based support and I believe it is in Britain’s national interest to take action against Gaddafi now, but at the same time to be mindful that in doing so, we are making a grave decision that must be combined with Britain using its soft power assets throughout the middle east to promote democracy and build civic society.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that I will take one more six-minute speech, then I will drop the time limit to four minutes to try and get in as many speakers as possible.

20:48

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Clearly, all war is evil, and we should remember that when we talk about the business of war. But some evil is necessary. In reflecting on the vote tonight, we should bear that in mind. Some of the language in our media over the past few days has left me cold. It is indicative of a country that has not experienced bombing for well over 60 years, but for those who are poor and who see bombs raining on their country from up above, with necessary supplies disrupted and real fear in their hearts, the urgency and seriousness of what we are talking about is very great indeed.

In reflecting on how to vote, I think of how this all began on 17 December 2010 with one man, Mohammed Bouazizi, who burned himself to death because of the oppression he saw and experienced in Tunisia. That set off a wave of activity across the middle east. In supporting this, we line up with him and with the young people of the region––the 29% of the population aged between 15 and 29 who have had enough. They are educated, too often unemployed, and concerned about an ossifying political system that does not seem to relate to their experience. They want to do something about the dictators and the lack of democracy across the region. That is the test. Those are the people we support, despite the UN resolution that is the subject of today’s motion. In doing so, we should recognise the changed circumstances in which we have such a debate and the kind of scrutiny that is expected of us.

Any action taken must clearly be proportionate. We must be mindful of the fact that the British public at large do not expect there to be large-scale civilian death as a result of our action. Any action must be proportionate and multilateral. This generation is mindful of the imperial past of our country and those countries that are part of the allied effort. That is important. That is why the multilateral approach is the right one. Against that backdrop, it is concerning that the Arab League, although it is prayed in aid, seems neither present, nor wholly behind what is happening. It is concerning that the African Union, too, clearly wants to disassociate itself from the bombing of Libya. How are we to present a multilateral force if those two major players are not part of it?

The generation of young people on the streets in the middle east, who are in communication with their generation in this country, ask two other major questions. First, what are the criteria by which we intervene? Why not Darfur or Zimbabwe? What is our position on Yemen and Bahrain? Is there consistency when we intervene? They are entitled to some answers on the new and changed circumstances, particularly in the context in which we are talking not about being invaded ourselves, but about intervention that is perhaps necessary in this new age. Secondly, that generation also asks for some consistency, integrity and principles in the UK’s position on arms. Just as we have taken noble positions on nuclear proliferation, the time has come not just for another review, but for statutory implementation on arms. We must ask ourselves why in the last year for which figures are available Europe spent €343 million arming Libya, involving companies from the UK, Italy, Germany and France. It was unacceptable when my party was in government, and it is unacceptable now.

20:55

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy).

First and foremost, my thoughts extend to our armed forces policing this no-fly zone and to their families. Our stated purpose is to save lives, and I am delighted that we have taken such a high moral and legal stand. I, like many here today, hope that we succeed in that worthy aim, and I commend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on their courage. All too often, leaders get it in the neck for failing to take the lead, but in this case they have, and I commend their courage, as other Members have.

I am, however, instinctively cautious, not least because there are so many deserving cases out there. We must remember that the resolution would not exist at all without the backing of the Arab League, therefore planes from those nations should be in action and soon. I welcome the news that Qatar is sending four warplanes, and I hope that Egypt and Saudi Arabia will follow suit. Should we lose the support of the Arab League for the resolution, it will put our Prime Minister and this country in a horrible predicament.

One of the burdens of the freedom we cherish is that we cannot idly stand by and watch while evil rides out, unleashing its vile intent. For that reason, I support any humanitarian relief that we can give to those fleeing Gaddafi’s brutality, but I do wonder where we will be operating next. Hon. Members have mentioned Zimbabwe, Liberia, Rwanda, Bahrain and Yemen. What if Saudi Arabia goes? I will leave the House with that thought.

The duty of any Government is to protect the nation, her people and her interests. Libya is of strategic significance, I believe, but I am concerned that we are walking on a knife-edge. Yes, we should be concerned about a pariah state festering on Europe’s southern boundary; wounded, Gaddafi’s regime would be even more dangerous. We must not forget his recent statement about uniting with al-Qaeda in a holy war against us. Let us not forget his support for the IRA and, of course, the murder of Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher and Lockerbie. The list goes on. But what if Gaddafi holds out in his western stronghold while menacing Benghazi? What happens then? Will that test the west’s resolve? I suspect it will.

In those circumstances and out of frustration, could an unintended consequence mean boots on the ground? Lessons from the recent past cannot be ignored. This is potentially much more than a no-fly zone, and that is where many of us have concerns. Currently, we know almost nothing about the insurgents or who, if Gaddafi were to fall, would take his place, but we have all learned to fear a vacuum in the Arab world. There is not going to be a brave new world in Libya where western democracy rules, and we would fool ourselves if we thought that.

I have such a short amount of time to speak, and I want other Members to come in, so I will put the spotlight back on defence. Our Secretary of State for Defence is not in his place, but the Foreign Secretary and a Defence Minister are. Owing to what is going on around the world, I call on our Front Benchers to reconsider the defence review. We have a duty to look after our armed personnel, and if we send them into harm’s way we have to make sure they have the arms and equipment to do the job on our behalf. Defending freedom has never ever come cheap.

As a soldier, I did not see active service. Although I was in Northern Ireland three times, I did not have a bullet fired at me personally, but speaking to friends who have, and given that many Members have asked about clarity, I can assure the House that the first thing that disappears when one makes contact with the enemy, is clarity.

20:58

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is sobering to think that, as we debate this motion tonight and allied aircraft are yet again deployed in action, there are inevitably men and women, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, who will not be going home tonight. They may, unfortunately, be allied air personnel; they will almost certainly be Libyan military personnel; and tragically they may very well be Libyan civilians who left home this morning to go to work but, for whatever reason, will not be returning.

I know that the Treasury Benchers and the Opposition Front Benchers take their responsibilities incredibly seriously: I know that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his colleagues do not relish, or seek jingoism in, their actions and the operations on which they must decide; and I know that the House recognises that my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) seek to carry out the duty of an Opposition, which is to cast a critical eye over the actions of the Government, and will not pursue political opportunism, because that is not in order in this debate.

Much has been said about why we are doing this, and Members on both sides of the House have questioned the wisdom of it. I came into politics because 20 years ago this summer the west stood by and took no action when Yugoslavia tore itself apart. We saw footage from Srebrenica, Sarajevo and other places of the massacre of men and boys, women and children, and the west did nothing to stop that. I cannot possibly imagine what it must have been like to live in that country during those times. I therefore very much welcome the fact that the Government have stepped up and provided some leadership in this action. The Secretary of State will know that Opposition Members stand willing to provide support to the Government in pursuing that course.

I was very lucky to make my maiden speech on the same day as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whom I have found inspiring over the past 10 months, both as a colleague on the Defence Committee and as a speaker in the House. I hope, if he will pardon my saying so, that in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time we do not have a situation where there are more Members like him who will have had to go in after the west did not take action to pick up the pieces of its indecisiveness. I will support the motion, with some reservations about casualties, but pleased that the west is taking action.

I will not speak about the defence review, which has already been covered, beyond saying that we will return to it in a future debate. However, I urge the Secretary of State to keep under review the issue of the warships and aircraft that we have. I pose two questions. First, will he give an absolute guarantee that the operational costs will be met from the Treasury reserve, not from departmental budgets? Secondly, will he give a guarantee that work is now under way between the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence on the reconstruction of Libya once the action has ceased?

21:02

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Colonel Gaddafi does not do peaceful. Benghazi may be relatively safe for the moment, but what about elsewhere in Libya? That really worries me.

As my—dare I say, with some trepidation?—hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) suggests, I have had experience in this respect. I remember very well that when I was the military commander in Bosnia in 1993, a little girl of six was brought to my house by a delegate from the International Committee of the Red Cross. She had been in a prison camp for 10 days. The Red Cross delegate said to me, “This girl needs shelter.” I said, “I’m the military commander.” She said, “You’ve got plenty of room in your house, and you’ve got two soldiers who look after you.” The soldiers turned to me and said, “We’ll look after her, sir.” They took her away, put her in a bath and washed her, and cared for her. They put a bed for her between their two cots. Three days later, that girl did not want to leave. I am worried that what had happened to her might be happening to people in Tripoli tonight. She was dragged out of her bed at 5 o’clock in the morning, with her mother, father and brother, told to get downstairs and made to lie on the grass by brutes with rifles. As she told it, her mother, father and brother lay down and did not get up again. This weekend, I spoke to members of the opposition in Tripoli, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Mr Gaddafi will be sending his thugs searching around there tonight.

What can we do to help? We cannot invade, we cannot assassinate—it is up to the Libyans to decide what we do. I have seen people with pitchforks try to take out tanks. How are those people going to be protected? They need help. Perhaps the Arab League could help a little more in that respect. Perhaps it could go forward. We cannot do it.

Nobody knows the endgame—we all realise that. If we were God, perhaps we would, but we do not. We live in hope. We do not have the endgame plotted out carefully.

We acted morally on the highest authority in the world—the Security Council of the United Nations. Thank goodness we did, because last Friday Colonel Gaddafi suggested he was going to go through houses in Benghazi and butcher everyone who opposed him. That did not happen. We have, by our actions, saved life. Politics can sort things out hereafter, but one thing is quite clear: there will be a lot more people around to watch what happens from now on than there would have been if we had done nothing last Friday. Thank you very much, Prime Minister. Thank you very much, Foreign Secretary. Thank you very much, the Opposition, for your full support. It is deeply appreciated by all of us.

Let us hope that someone has the brains of Methuselah and that we find out what the endgame is in due course. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary has the brains of Methuselah.

21:06

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I have listened to all the Members who have spoken in this debate since 3.30 this afternoon. I rise to my feet with trepidation because I am in the minority of the few Members who do not think that this action is wise. I will explain why.

I believe that although the Prime Minister and the leader of my party are genuine and sincere in their desire for humanitarian intervention in Libya, many in this House and outside are not genuine in that desire but are itching to have a go at Colonel Gaddafi and Libya because of their support in the distant past for the IRA, the Lockerbie bombing, al-Megrahi and other reasons. I am afraid that many of those people are using this situation as a fig leaf for intervention.

Another reason, and I know that people do not like hearing this, is oil. Oil plays a massive role in this matter and in our economic and strategic interests in Libya. There are, of course, Members in this House who hold views like those of the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), whom I heard last week say that he is proud to intervene in as many Muslim countries as we want to.

I urge caution because there is too little information about the real situation in Libya. Comparisons have been made with Iraq. Many people said that we did not know what the real situation was in Iraq; that the war would not be easy or straightforward; that we could not just go in, blast them and take over—end of story; and that everybody would run into the streets to welcome us. That is what we were told then, and we were told that we needed to do that war. The same drums are beating now for Libya.

There is the suggestion that the whole of the Arab League and everyone in Libya is saying, “Come and help us.” They are not. The states of the Arab League have their own vested interests. They are not that concerned about humanitarian issues. We talk about the rebels in Libya. Who are these rebels, when did they come about and how many are there? How deep is the resistance and the rebellion? Why is this not just seen as a civil insurrection that is going on in a country? Do we know what we will get in place of the regime?

I know that everybody is saying that we cannot tell what will happen at the end of the war, because when one starts a military intervention one does not know what will be the end. However, we should know exactly what we are going in for and exactly what we are trying to achieve. Everybody has a romantic notion of a no-fly zone, but, as Robert Gates said, it is a euphemism for war. If we want to maintain no-fly zones we have to send in many Scud missiles and bombs, and nobody can say that there will not be any civilian destruction as a result of all the bombing. It is wrong for everyone to pretend that the no-fly zone and strategic air drops will prevent civilian casualties. There will be massive civilian casualties, and we will have exactly the situation that we had in Iraq.

I always urge people to understand—even in the case of Iraq, although I was not in the House at the time—that we in this country and this House do not really understand the middle east and north Africa. We are meddling in things that we should not meddle in, because there are so many uncertainties. In the past 10 or 12 years, America, ourselves and others have spent trillions of dollars on being involved in conflicts in the middle east, and what have we left? We have not resolved any of the situations involved or made countries any better than when we went into them.

21:10

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Gaddafi will not lose any sleep over anything that is said in the House, but I hope that those around him, whether they be civilian or military leaders, will take note. I was grateful to the Prime Minister, when I intervened on him about five and a half hours ago, for agreeing that those who continue to stand by Gaddafi could face their day before the war crimes tribunal. They will be hunted down and found, and they will have to answer for their actions.

Last week, I was in Afghanistan visiting our brave members of the armed forces in Helmand province. I am concerned that, as with Iraq, we will take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan. The Foreign Secretary will recall that in opposition we constantly raised concerns about the fact that our armed forces were under strength and overstretched, and we are now having cuts in the defence budget. I say to our Government that if we are to have a major role on the world stage, we must ensure that we have the forces and resources to deliver. I repeat that we must be careful about what happens in Afghanistan if we get too heavily involved in Libya. However, I back the motion and will support it.

The armed forces covenant forms part of the Armed Forces Bill, which is still proceeding through the parliamentary process. The feedback that I bring from the front line, from Camp Bastion and Lashkar Gah, is grave concern not just about the freezing of armed forces pay, which was the subject of a written statement today, but about the cuts to allowances. If we wish morale to be maintained, the Government need to look again at that.

I shall read a brief excerpt from a letter handed to me in Camp Bastion. It states:

“I joined the Armed Forces in 1982 and have progressed through the ranks from a Private soldier to a present day Major…I have never in 28 years service, complained in private or public…I am one of the very large silent majority of Armed Forces personnel that choose to serve Queen and Country. We love every day at work and truly believed that those who employ us, deploy us, or represent us, would always do their very best to look after both mine, my colleagues’, and where possible my family’s short and long-term interests…all my future financial plans that have been based on leaving the Army, with an immediate pension aged 55, are under attack.”

The letter goes on to spell out how that long-serving Army major, formerly a private, is now seeing his financial prospects under threat.

Time prevents me, unfortunately, from reading an excellent article by Lord Gnome in the wonderful organ Private Eye, but suffice it to say that it refers to the many occasions on which the Labour Government sold arms to Libya and Colonel Gaddafi.

21:14

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on her brave speech.

I will support the Government in the Lobby tonight, partly because I genuinely believe that only swift action at the weekend avoided a bloodbath in Benghazi, and partly because I am convinced that we have a solid legal basis for the military action. That has not always been the case.

However, the Government would be wrong to take this evening’s vote as some sort of blank cheque. I point to the unsettling lack of real Arab involvement in the deployment so far. We know that the Arab League countries have plenty of military kit because we sold them most of it. Why is it not being deployed? Why are not senior Arab military people involved in the deployment?

Western-led bombardment of a Muslim country plays to the Gaddafi narrative of crusader invasion. We can knock Gaddafi, but that has a genuine visceral impact on the countries involved. There will be civilian casualties—there always are in such deployments—and it will not take many for public opinion in Arab countries to turn against the deployment. We should bear that in mind.

Let me remind the House of Colin Powell, the American Secretary of State who tried to argue against Iraq with his colleagues Bush and Cheney. He reminded them of the Pottery Barn rule. Pottery Barn is a chain in America that sells china. The rule is “You break it, you own it”. If we intervene with a massive military deployment in north Africa, we will inevitably own the development of the story from here.

I am not at all sure that civilians can be protected with Gaddafi in power. I do not know how Gaddafi can be removed through air bombardment alone. The British people are very humane and I think that they understand that we intervened swiftly to save lives in Benghazi. However, I do not believe that there is a will or a willingness among them for us to get dragged into a long-running civil war in north Africa because we follow the logic of our rhetoric.

I will vote for the letter of the resolution. It is not a blank cheque. It is not the will of my constituents or British people generally to give the Government a blank cheque. We have done the right thing so far, but, as other hon. Members have said, we want Front Benchers to return to the House for a full debate before we take any further steps, which could get us involved in a third war in a Muslim country in a decade.

21:17

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I welcome the debate and want to make three points, given the time available. I want to consider why we got here today, the resolution, and the role of the United Nations.

I accept that it is not only the past 10 years of policy on Libya that has caused the current problems. Indeed, we can go back to the 1950s, when the British first installed King Idris on the throne. Although he was liked and popular, he was weak. Gaddafi emerged on the scene in the late 1950s. I mentioned last week in the middle east debate that my father shook Gaddafi’s hand as he walked down the streets of Tripoli as a popular colonel. The coup against King Idris was bloodless; he was in Turkey at the time. Astonishingly, there was an American air base near Tripoli, but the Americans did nothing to stop the coup. The west has therefore been getting it wrong about Colonel Gaddafi for many years, and in the past few years, it got it even more wrong.

I welcome the United Nations resolution and the Prime Minister’s leadership. The no-fly zone was essential to stop a massacre of the citizens of Benghazi in particular. However, we need to go further because there is a strong likelihood, which I mentioned earlier, that Gaddafi may use mustard gas. The policy to try to contain his weapons of mass destruction went wrong. If it happens, we do not want another Halabja, which I visited not long ago, on our hands.

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) that we must supply weapons to the resistance fighters. We cannot just leave them to Gaddafi’s troops, albeit under a no-fly zone. We must also ensure that all kinds of humanitarian aid reaches the citizens of Tripoli and Benghazi and the surrounding areas.

The Leader of the Opposition said earlier that he was unsure whether this is a watershed moment in our international affairs, but I think it is. The UN has so often failed us and not intervened when it should have done, but the Libyan situation is an example of the UN behaving differently and acting in an almost united way. That is why it is a watershed moment—it marks an important moment in our international affairs.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) said that I believe in intervention everywhere, and she is not wrong. I believe in muscular enlightenment, and that it is our duty to promote freedom around the world. That need not always happen militarily; we can also use soft power—hearts and minds. However, it must be our role in the world to promote freedom, human rights, the rule of law, tolerance and women’s equality wherever we can.

21:21

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I returned last night from a visit to Egypt, where I had the privilege of seeing Egyptian democracy in action. On Saturday, that country voted in a referendum on the amendment to its constitution. From visiting polling stations, I can say that what the Prime Minister said in his opening speech is quite correct. It is a fine example of a new democracy, from the enthusiastic queues to the independent scrutiny by the judiciary of the polling process.

I also had the opportunity to talk to people at all levels about the wider implications of the Egyptian revolution for the middle east, including Palestine, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya. I talked not only to the interim Government and to Amr Moussa, but to the opposition forces, from the youth coalition to the Muslim Brotherhood. Not one person or group to whom I spoke was opposed to the letter of the UN resolution, which is perhaps unsurprising given the empathy of the people in Tahrir square for the people of Benghazi.

Before coming to the House today, I met Arab Muslim community leaders to take their views. They, too, were broadly in favour, but they expressed views that ranged from, “We should do anything necessary to get rid of Gaddafi”—one can understand why Libyans living in Britain take that view—to, “We are already exceeding the limits of the resolution,” in the sentiments that Amr Moussa has expressed.

In the brief time available, I should like to develop those caveats. First, the basic picture shows western planes bombing a Muslim Arab country and killing people, including civilians. That is why it is so important to get the support of the wider Muslim and Arab community. I hope we have done that through the Arab League resolutions.

Secondly, the problem of double standards will not go away, whether in respect of Yemen or the atrocities that have been committed over the years in the middle east, including the massacre in Syria in 1982 by the late President Assad; the massacre at Sabra Shatila by the Maronite Christians with the support of the Israeli Government; or the massacres in Gaza two years ago or in Lebanon in 2006, when, to my Government’s shame, we did not even call for a ceasefire. Those double standards need to be addressed if we are to have the confidence and support of the Arab people of the middle east.

Thirdly and finally, on the limits of our aims and actions, it is not good enough for the Government to say that they are not prepared to talk about targeting. I understand why they would not want to do it. However, on the same day the Defence Secretary said that assassinating Gaddafi might be a possibility, General Sir David Richards said, “Absolutely not!” They have to address this issue.

Amr Moussa made a perfectly reasonable point. We are there to protect the lives of civilians, so we must take every possible step to ensure that our military action does not kill civilians. That is not inconsistent with the resolution. I agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) that we cannot know what the outcome will be. Nevertheless, we have to take this action. However, we have to be aware that it will be a very long haul, and we have to be there not just in the days ahead, but in the months ahead. That is what the people of Libya will expect from this country.

21:25

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Brevity demands bluntness, for which I hope the Government will forgive me. I support the motion, but I think that we need to be honest about the consequences of what we are taking on. First, we have crossed a threshold, and by approving this motion, the House is crossing it with our political leaders. Hon. Members should have no illusions: there is no such thing as limited war, in all its bloody terror and dirt. Secondly, I remind the House that

“no one starts a war—or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so—without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”

So wrote Karl von Clausewitz.

The Government must admit that on that there is some doubt and the potential for confusion and indecision. The Prime Minister set that out again today when he outlined the limited aims of the UN Security Council resolution alongside our aspiration to remove Gaddafi. The former Chief of the General Staff, General Lord Dannatt, wrote at the weekend:

“Unless the military planners are crystal clear about the strategic objective to be achieved then the focusing of effort is going to be misaligned from the outset.”

That is a danger we face today. He talked of how military planners are

“trained to work out the implied tasks as well, to ensure that the campaign plan fulfils entirely what the higher authority's intentions are. In this case, the specified task is the protection of civilians, but the implied task—and the end-state to be achieved—must be the removal of Colonel Gaddafi and his regime”.

At times, the Prime Minister seemed to be talking as though we could just implement a no-fly zone and go home. Of course, we will have to maintain a no-fly zone until the political situation is resolved. How else is the stalemate to be resolved?

We have a duty to be clear. Either the removal of Gaddafi is the legitimate military aim, or I put it to the Foreign Secretary that we must drop it from our public statements and focus our words on the more limited task we are setting our military. We cannot do both. Clausewitz again:

“The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes.”

The UK has to balance the will to obtain a preferred outcome—Gaddafi’s removal—with the wider issue of security and stability.

This action derives its political credibility because of support from Libya’s fellow Arab nations. Can we afford to risk losing their support or that of the United States, which acts as underwriter for the military effort? I submit not. We can succeed in preventing the atrocity in Benghazi, but should the Arab League walk away from the confrontation with Gaddafi, why should it be our fight? We had better fix our goal and military strategy accordingly rather than invite mission creep by over-extending that rhetoric.

In the meantime we must settle the other vital questions that the Prime Minister started to address. Who is in command of this operation? I would like NATO to be in charge. Who is in command of the communications strategy? Where is the Jamie Shea—he was so effective in the Balkans—of this operation? Finally, how are these matters being considered by the Government? The Public Administration Committee, which I chair, conducted an inquiry into how Government strategy is decided. Strategy is not about setting certain policies in stone; it is about the ability to adapt plans to changing circumstances. To that extent, it is not about whether we reopen the strategic defence and security review; it is about how the SDSR should be adapted to changing circumstances. We have already had six strategic shocks since the SDSR.

21:30

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I believe that this debate has done justice to the seriousness of the motion before the House this evening. The House has benefited from speeches reflecting the huge experience, knowledge and concern that hon. Members bring to this debate and this decision. We heard cogent cases made by former Defence Secretaries on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) spoke with wisdom and authority in expressing his reluctance to put British forces in harm’s way once again. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) spoke with his characteristic clarity and insight on the importance of the United Nations. His insight was matched by one of his old sparring partners, the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who rightly urged that consideration be given now to issues of reconstruction.

Given the time available, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not acknowledge all the contributions that we have heard in this debate. As the Leader of the Opposition made clear, we will support the Government in the Lobby this evening. We do that not because we are eager for conflict or simply because we wish to show support for our forces; we do so because we believe that this action meets three criteria: it is a just cause, with a feasible mission and with international consent. We support United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, and we are determined to see it enforced.

That determination to offer our support is matched by our determination to scrutinise this Government and ask the questions that the public deserve to have answered. Support for the enforcement of the United Nations mandate; scrutiny of the Government’s conduct in its implementation—this is, and will remain, the approach of the Opposition. When military force is contemplated, Governments cannot expect—nor are they entitled to expect—unquestioning support. It is through serious and sustained scrutiny that, as the Opposition, we best serve the men and women of our armed forces. That is why, in the time ahead, the Government must ensure that this House is regularly updated. Voting for the deployment of our servicemen and women is and always should be a last resort. The personnel of our armed forces in action in Libya now and in the days ahead will be in our thoughts and prayers.

[Robert Halfon]

Would the right hon. Gentleman support at some stage giving arms to the opposition to Gaddafi?

[Mr Alexander]

That issue has already been the subject of some debate in the House today. The terms of the Security Council resolution are clear, and as I will seek to emphasise in my winding-up speech, we are under an obligation to adhere to the terms of that resolution.

I believe that it is the duty of the Government to act in what they judge to be the national interest, and that it is the duty of the Opposition to support them when they agree in that judgment. Concerned voices in this House—such as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—are not only appropriate to this place; they are appropriate to this debate. Let me therefore acknowledge from this Dispatch Box that the Opposition recognise the heavy responsibility that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government have to bear in these difficult days.

The terms of the motion before the House make it clear that the Government seek explicit approval for an explicit objective. That objective is to implement UN Security Council resolution 1973, through “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, and to enforce the no-fly zone. The background to the approval of the resolution has been well documented and well rehearsed today. In the context of the broader Arab spring, and in the wake of popular protests in Tunisia and Egypt, people in both eastern and western Libya took to the streets to demand a better future. In response, popular protests were repressed and the protesters beaten, imprisoned or killed. Hospitals were attacked and patients disappeared.

On Thursday, Gaddafi’s troops arrived outside Benghazi, a city of roughly 700,000 people. Gaddafi promised to

“cleanse the city of Benghazi”.

He told the people there:

“We will have no mercy and no pity.”

Leaders of the transitional national council in the city said there would be a “massacre” that would

“be on the international community’s conscience”.

Although Members will have real and legitimate questions about what happens next, let us be in no doubt what would have happened last weekend if there had been no action from the international community. Not to have acted would itself have been a choice and would have led to terrible consequences. That is why, even at such a late hour, it was vital that the international community came together to act and I pay generous tribute to the work of the Government in achieving the adoption of Security Council resolution 1973.

Let me turn next to the mission and its limits. The authorisation given in that resolution was for measures to implement a no-fly zone and to protect the civilian population. Following the passage of the resolution, the US President made very clear what was expected: a ceasefire must be implemented immediately; all attacks against civilians must stop; Gaddafi’s troops must be pulled back from Benghazi, Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiyah; and humanitarian assistance, electricity and water must be allowed through. Gaddafi has ignored that expectation and so the Government are asking today for the endorsement of a mission subject to very specific limits, which are laid down in resolution 1973. They do not ask for—and would not be entitled to—a mandate to pursue armed regime change.

Everyone in this House, including senior Ministers, must recognise the importance of the words they choose and speak with care and clarity. So given the earlier remarks of the Defence Secretary about the possible targeting of Gaddafi and the categorical rejection of this position by the Chief of the Defence Staff, I hope that the Foreign Secretary, when he winds up, will bring both clarity and coherence to the Government’s position. The House deserves it and our armed forces need it.

We should all be mindful that this conflict will be fought on the airwaves as well as in the air. To maintain pressure on Gaddafi and sustain international support, the House should be crystal clear that the mission is to protect Libya’s population, not to choose Libya’s leadership. That decision should rest only with Libya’s people.

Let me also raise the issue of ground forces. Security Council resolution 1973 is clear that although it authorises the protection of civilians, that authorisation excludes

“a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory”.

The communiqué from the Paris summit concludes that

“we recall that UN Security Council resolution 1973 does not allow for any occupation of, or attempt to occupy the Libyan territory”.

The US President went further in saying

“we will not—I repeat—we will not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground.”

Last week, the Prime Minister said

“no ground troops and no occupying force”.—[Official Report, 18 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 621.]

No one asks for—and no one would be entitled to—a mandate for an occupation of Libya, but Members deserve clarity, which I hope the Foreign Secretary can provide, about in which circumstances, if any, UK personnel would be authorised to enter Libyan territory.

We will support the Government tonight not simply because it was vital to avoid what the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife warned would be the “slaughterhouse of Benghazi”. The impact of that decision—the decision we take tonight—will be felt not only in Tripoli but in other capitals across the region and across the world. I believe that for the United Nations, this now represents a test of faith as well as of strength. In the face of the global challenges we face, we need strong and effective multilateral institutions, so the United Nations should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action.

The lasting shame of Rwanda, Somalia, Srebrenica and East Timor cannot, of course, be removed in one Security Council resolution, but this resolution can give new life to the doctrine that developed in response to those failures—the responsibility to protect. That should not hide the fact that military action almost always leads to the loss of life, but it should give us courage that the motion tabled today reflects the broadest consensus of international views, approved by the highest multilateral body. If we believe in a responsibility to protect, if we believe that multilateral institutions should be used for the protection of civilian life, discussion should be followed by decision and by action.

Many Members from both sides of the House have mentioned the situations in Bahrain and in Yemen, which are both deeply concerning and deteriorating. Notwithstanding its historical ties, Britain must be unequivocal in its condemnation of the violence, and must make it clear to both the Bahraini and the Yemeni Governments that a security response cannot be an alternative to political reform.

The commencement of military action should not be a signal that the time for diplomacy is over. This crisis will test not just our military strength, but our diplomatic skill and stamina. It is vital that the diplomatic work continues to hold together this precious coalition. I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of regular political-level meetings of the coalition, and I would welcome a clear and continuing role for the Arab League.

I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to update the House on the work that is being done to sustain support in the region, to increase pressure on the countries that have allowed their citizens to become mercenaries in Libya, and to sustain non-military pressure on the regime. Our commitment to Libya’s future, through our membership of the European Union, must be serious and long-term. The whole House will wish to know what work is under way on contingency planning for post-conflict reconstruction. What are the structures equal to this immense task, who will lead the work, and how will the House be assured that this vital work is being done? We should also bear in mind that Britain needs to be working, now, on a trade, aid and civil society response in case the Libyan people choose a new future.

The House has the privilege of discussion, but it also has the responsibility of decision. All of us who will support and stand with the Government tonight must have the humility to acknowledge that, at this moment of decision, we cannot say for certain what lies ahead. Intervention, even in support of humanitarian ends, brings with it unforeseen and uncertain consequences, but by our decision tonight we will be supporting action that has already prevented the foreseeable and certain killing of many Libyan citizens. We will also be supporting action that has broad support in the region and is underpinned by a Security Council resolution that authorises the necessary force required to protect the Libyan people.

We have a legal, political and moral mandate to act to protect civilian life. That is the international community’s responsibility, that should be Britain’s choice, and so that must be the House’s decision. I urge all Members to support the motion.

21:42

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

We have heard 50 speeches tonight, and I have listened to the vast majority of them. Every single one has raised proper questions and issues. It will, of course, be impossible to respond to all of them in the 16 minutes that remain, but I will do my best to respond to the general themes and to some of the specific questions.

The debate has naturally focused on UN Security Council resolution 1973 and the situation in Libya, but many Members have pointed out that there are wider conclusions to be drawn, and a need to address our policy on the entire region. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), for instance, referred to the dramatic changes that have taken place throughout the region: changes that may already constitute the most important event of the early 21st century—even more important than 9/11 or the 2008 financial crisis—in terms of their possible consequences.

If many of the countries of the middle east turn into stable democracies and more open economies, the gains for our security and prosperity will be enormous. If they do not, the potential breeding grounds for terrorism and extremism will prosper. That is why it is so much in our national interest to address these issues, and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have argued that the response of the whole of Europe must be as bold, as ambitious and as historic in its intentions as these events are in their nature. We should be holding out to the countries of the middle east the prospect of free trade, areas of customs union and a new economic area with the European Union. We should be providing it with incentives and acting as a magnet for positive change in that region.

We can be optimistic about the prospects for positive change in many of those countries. In Egypt, the Egyptian army’s decision to protect the people kept the spotlight firmly where it was supposed to be—on a Government who had to listen to people’s aspirations. In Tunisia, too, after deplorable violence against unarmed protestors, the Government crumbled, accepting the will of the people and beginning a transformation of the political system. The situation in Libya is completely different. In the past three weeks we have heard reports of soldiers being burned alive for refusing to obey orders to crush the protests. We have seen the use of mercenaries to slaughter civilians, the cutting off of food, electricity and medical supplies to population centres and the broadcast of televised threats to purge whole cities and to hunt down people in their homes. Just today, after the announcement of a second ceasefire by the Gaddafi regime, Reuters has reported that Gaddafi’s forces fired on a crowd of unarmed people late today in the centre of the city of Misrata. In Ajdabiya, there have been reports of body thefts, with military casualties being made to look like civilian casualties. Al-Jazeera reports that Gaddafi’s forces continue to shell the town of Zintan heavily and that they have given residents two hours to surrender or face total execution. That is what passes for a ceasefire according to the Gaddafi regime.

It is against that background that the House has today weighed carefully the arguments that we have presented for and against our military actions. There has been nothing gleeful or gung-ho about the atmosphere in the House and there is nothing gung-ho about the atmosphere in and decisions of the Government. The great majority of hon. Members who have spoken today have spoken in support of the Government’s actions and the motion, and many explained that they did so with reluctance or regret. The Government have approached this issue with the same sense of gravity.

It was fascinating to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who spoke of the horror of violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who has served in three wars in the past decade, pointed out that nobody who has served in them ever wants to be involved in one again. Hon. Members have wrestled with their consciences. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said that he was debating with himself and for a moment he did, indeed, debate with himself in front of the whole House, which was quite a spectacle. The fact that he should be wrestling with his conscience illustrates the difficulty of the choices we face and the general unity that the House has come to, which is not an automatic or unthinking unity but is because we think it right to act in this situation. We are conscious that any military action can involve loss of life, but we are clear that when our armed forces take action they take the greatest care to avoid civilian casualties. When our pilots were on their mission last night and thought that civilians were in danger, they turned back—what a contrast with a regime that turns its guns on its own people and regards the lives of its citizens as mere shields.

We are clear that we are engaged in this action to protect the civilian population and we were clear, as last week went on, that we had to act with all possible speed. That is why we moved heaven and earth, diplomatically, to pass the UN resolution on Thursday night. Yes, we took a risk in doing that because nine positive votes are required in the Security Council and there can be no vetoes. To have been defeated on that resolution would have made it hard to take any subsequent action, but any later would have been too late. Once the resolution was passed, we had to move with all possible speed. As the House knows, the Cabinet met on Friday morning to consider the UN resolution at length, with the legal advice of the Attorney-General in front of us for all members to read, and the Prime Minister came to the House at the earliest possible moment to state our intention.

Some hon. Members have asked whether the House should have sat on Saturday to consider the motion; of course, in future instances, that can be considered, but they should be clear that to effect the situation, we had to give the orders for military action on Saturday afternoon. Other hon. Members have asked that there be no mission creep. I am happy to assure them that if the Government ever fundamentally change the nature of the mission that we have described to the House, we will return to the House for a further debate to consult it again. We will also enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) quite rightly asked—the shadow Foreign Secretary echoed this—what debate we would be having today had we not taken action last week. How many people would now be wringing their hands? How many would be lamenting the fate of a proud city and the lives of people who live there?

[Jim Dowd]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hague]

I will mention the hon. Gentleman in a moment, so he can intervene then, but I am trying in a very short time to answer the questions that have been asked. How many extra tens of thousands of people would now be streaming to the borders? We should be proud that our forces were able to respond in time. One of the reasons—the main reason—why people have heard of forces from only the United States, France and the United Kingdom going into action is that they are among the few countries in the world with the capability to act so quickly. It is not necessarily that other countries are unwilling; their capability is not as great.

The reason why we were able to act in that way and win such support at the United Nations is that the support—the call—of the Arab League for a no-fly zone and the protection of the people of Libya was unprecedented. That has had an enormous impact. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) gave the other side of the argument, and asked why Britain should get involved. Given the background—we are one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, one of only three of those members who believed that it was necessary to take action, and one of the few countries with the military capability to do something about the situation—if we had not got involved in the resolution and the action, then such a resolution and such action would probably not have happened at all. That is our responsibility in the United Kingdom, as well as our clear national interest. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, it is not in our national interest for a dangerous dictator with a record of violent acts beyond his own country to run a pariah state on the very edge of the European Union.

[Mr Allen]

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

[Mr Hague]

I will not. I give way hundreds of times in other debates, but I am trying to answer the points made today.

It is not in our interests for Egypt and Tunisia to be destabilised. Of course, the action that we have taken is not without risks and dangers to our armed forces and the people we are trying to help, and many hon. Members have highlighted the risks involved, but as the Leader of the Opposition said in a powerful speech, the argument that we do not know the sequence of events to come is not an argument for inaction. As was said by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), who was trying to intervene, just because we have made mistakes in the past, it does not mean that we should not try to do something right; I absolutely agree with him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) made a memorable and powerful speech, and I would love to hear the 60-minute version, not the six-minute version. He reminded us that our mission is to protect human beings, and that the temptation to dig ever deeper in all such situations must be resisted. We are conscious of that in the Government. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) pointed out, we are seeking to implement the United Nations resolution so that the people of Libya can determine their own future. We will make every effort to maintain and consult our broad coalition, closely consulting the Arab League and working with our NATO partners, including Turkey, as several hon. Members have asked us to do.

Some Members asked what the Arab League intended to say. I spoke to Mr Amr Moussa yesterday afternoon—the Prime Minister spoke to him today—and he made it clear to me that he did not mean to criticise the mission, and he supports the UN resolution and its enforcement. Others have asked if our approach is part of a wider approach to the region and a commitment to the middle east peace process; it certainly is. They asked whether we will make conflict prevention central to our policy; yes, of course we do, as we have shown recently in Sudan. They asked whether we will plan for different scenarios, including humanitarian assistance when it is necessary; yes, we certainly are doing so.

Some of my hon. Friends have asked whether this decision showed that an aircraft carrier should have been retained, but I can tell them that the Tornado aircraft that are most suited of all to perform these missions could not have been flown from an aircraft carrier. Other hon. Members have asked whether the costs will be met from the reserve, and I can tell them that they will. We have also been asked to look carefully at all legal advice on the meaning of the arms embargo of paragraph 4 of the resolution, and of course we are doing so.

In the case of Libya, the desire to be rid of a decaying dictatorship has run up against a regime that has shown itself to be one of the most ruthless, unprincipled and savage. The Arab world and the western world care about the civilians of Libya, but their Government do not. We are determined to stop violence, bloodshed and suffering—the very things that the Gaddafi regime is happy to unleash. When the Prime Minister said in the House three weeks ago that we should not just stand by if Colonel Gaddafi used military force against his own people, he was seen by many as being too bold. But he meant what he said, and we mean to stand by his words just as we are standing by the people of Libya.

With our allies and partners, we have carried through the United Nations Security Council a resolution that is clear, unequivocal and comprehensive, and that leaves the legality of what we are now doing not in the slightest doubt. We have acted at the behest of the Arab League, and are joined by Arab nations. We have taken every care to ensure that doubts about lawfulness and regional support, such as those that have dogged earlier decisions, do not apply in this case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) said, we are right to act but right not to act alone.

This is not the west imposing its views on Libya; it is the world saying that the people of Libya should be allowed to express their views without their Government setting out to slaughter them. We are not trying to choose the future Government of Libya. That is a matter for Libyans, who must find their own solution to the mis-government that they have been subjected to, but this resolution, and our enforcement of it, gives them their only chance of being allowed to do so. This is not a legal fudge or a questionable interpretation of international law; it is the rigorous application of international law. Our actions are all the stronger for the breadth and determination of the international coalition, but they are also stronger for the breadth and determination of this House, which we have seen today.

The brave members of our armed forces who have patrolled the skies above Benghazi today or flown through the night to destroy the air defences of a regime that used air power against its own citizens can know that they do so armed not only with the weaponry that they are so well trained to deploy but with every advantage of knowing that what they do is legally warranted, morally necessary, internationally supported and, I hope, democratically agreed through a vote of this House of Commons. They can have the satisfaction of knowing that, in precipitating the retreat of Gaddafi’s forces from Benghazi, they have already averted a catastrophe and a new outpouring of human misery. In pressing our case at the United Nations, in insisting that what we do must be legal, in taking extreme care to protect civilians and in acting with a speed and precision that few armed forces on Earth can rival, this country is doing what it said it would do, doing what is absolutely right and joining in giving a lead to the world, and it should enjoy the united support of the House tonight.

Question put.

21:58

Division 235

Ayes: 557

---

Conservative: 278
Labour: 211
Liberal Democrat: 54
Scottish National Party: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3

Noes: 13

---

Labour: 11
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Conservative: 1
Green Party: 1

Resolved,

That this House welcomes United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1973; deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime; acknowledges the demonstrable need, regional support and clear legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya; accordingly supports Her Majesty’s Government, working with others, in the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack in Libya and to enforce the No Fly Zone, including the use of UK armed forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; and offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty’s armed forces.

Members’ Salaries

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

22:18

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I beg to move,

That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(1) For the period beginning with 1 April 2011 and ending with the relevant day, the rates of—

(a) Members’ salaries, and

(b) additional salaries payable to Members under Resolutions of this House in respect of service as chairs of select or general committees, shall be the same as those salaries as at 31 March 2011.

(2) In paragraph (1) the “relevant day” means—

(a) the day before the day on which the first determination of Members’ salaries by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority comes into effect, or

(b) 31 March 2013,

whichever is the earlier.

(3) Paragraphs (9), (10) and (12)(b) of the Resolution of 3 July 2008 (Members’ Salaries (No. 2) (Money)) cease to have effect on the day this Resolution is passed.

(4) The remaining provisions of that Resolution cease to have effect on 1 April 2011.

We move now to MPs’ pay. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. I fully understand that right hon. and hon. Members are not that interested in hearing speeches about their own pay, but I hope that as a courtesy to the Leader of the House those Members who are disinterested and inclined to leave the Chamber will do so quickly and quietly, so that those who wish to hear the Leader of the House can do so.

[Sir George Young]

The whole House will be keenly aware of the country’s difficult financial situation, and both sides of the House accept that we have a substantial structural deficit, which must be brought down. The Government have had to take difficult decisions throughout the public sector, including imposing a two-year pay freeze on public sector workers earning more than £21,000. Hon. Members must now decide whether their constituents would welcome Parliament exempting itself from that policy and thus insulating itself from decisions that are affecting households throughout the country, or whether, as I believe, the public expect their elected representatives to be in step with what is being required of other public servants. I believe that it is right for us, as Members of Parliament, to forgo the pay increase that the current formula would have produced.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I quite agree that Parliament should not exempt itself, but I was under the impression that we were never going to vote on our pay again.

[Sir George Young]

I will come in a moment to the point about whether we should overturn the decision that we took in July 2008. Let me briefly set out the background. On 3 July 2008, the House agreed a new formula for uprating Members’ salaries, which is what I think my hon. Friend was referring to. The annual percentage increase would be the median of a basket of public sector comparators, and this percentage would be calculated by the Senior Salaries Review Body and notified to you, Mr Speaker, in a letter from its chairman. That percentage increase would then take effect automatically from 1 April.

That system has considerable advantages. It provides a fixed uprating formula so that we do not determine our own salaries. It is transparent, as the formula and the SSRB’s determination are there for everyone to see. It is also fair in that it provides a link between the salary of a Member of Parliament and the salaries of others in the public sector. Those are the virtues that the Government usually believe should underpin any system for determining our salaries—independence, transparency and fairness. We have therefore not taken lightly the decision to set aside the pay increase and thereby abandon the formula.

As I said, the Government’s decision to invite the House to agree to a pay freeze is the product of the difficult fiscal situation in which we have to find significant cost savings across the public sector. As my predecessor as Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said in the 2008 debate:

“given that MPs are paid from the public purse, we should show the same discipline in our pay increases as we expect from the public sector.”—[Official Report, 3 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 1062.]

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is a decent fellow, but this is not quite the full story. The full story is that no Government have ever resisted the temptation to poke their nose into this business. We have set up mechanisms, to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) referred, and said that they should be independent and we should go along with them, and then when it suits the Government of the day—not just this Government but any Government—they change the rules. That completely undermines any claim they make to believe in independent mechanisms. Either we come forward with what the independent review mechanism says, or we do not. This Government, like their predecessors, are poking their nose in where it does not belong.

[Sir George Young]

I should like to address very directly the hon. Gentleman’s point about the independence of the review that we are overturning. He rightly says that by bringing this motion before the House, a Government are once again asking Members to vote on their own remuneration—something that we believed we had put behind us. He asks the very good question as to why we are asking the House to reject the independent findings of the SSRB and whether the SSRB is unable to take on board issues of the kind that I have been talking about. The short answer is this: the system that was introduced in 2008 provided an objective mechanism for determining our pay, but it was a long way from being independent. The formula was devised by the previous Government and endorsed by the House, and in no sense could it be said to be independent.

For those, like the hon. Gentleman, who say that we are substituting our own judgment on this issue for that of the independent SSRB, I remind the House of what the chairman of the SSRB, Sir Bill Cockburn, said in his letter to you, Mr Speaker, on 19 January. He said:

“I should emphasise that the SSRB has no discretion in making this determination but simply applies the formula set out in the Resolution. We were not consulted when the Resolution was drawn up. The resulting figure is not what the SSRB would have recommended had we been able to have regard to all the circumstances including, this year, the Government’s pay freeze for public sector workers paid more that £21,000 a year.”

In a nutshell, the SSRB is saying that if its hands had not been tied by the House, it would not have recommended the 1% pay increase that came before us in January. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the pay recommendations for other professions published today by the SSRB and the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration, he will see that no uplifts are recommended for those earning more than £21,000.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House is making a convincing argument that the SSRB, or whichever independent body we choose, should be more independent, not less. What he is doing tonight, of course, is renationalising the terms and conditions of MPs’ salaries, which is going in exactly the wrong direction. Does he accept that this matter will go on and on, and that MPs will be undermined consistently by the media and the public until we have a wholly independent authority that does not come back to this House or to the Government for a final decision?

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

We do not want IPSA.

[Sir George Young]

I say to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) that that is exactly the process that we are moving towards, although it will disappoint the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I will now come to what happens next.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What I do not understand from the Leader of the House is, if this increase is based on an average of public service salaries, are we not simply getting what the rest of the public services are getting?

[Sir George Young]

If my hon. Friend looks at the comparator, he will see that it includes a number of people who earn less than £21,000 and that, crucially, it includes settlements that were made before the last election. To that extent, it lags behind the public sector pay freeze that we announced in the Budget.

To answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, the 2008 resolution also requires the SSRB to conduct a review of Members’ salaries in the first year of each new Parliament. By rescinding the resolution in its entirety, the motion removes the requirement for the SSRB to conduct such a review this year. The review of Members’ salaries will instead take place following the commencement of section 29 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which will transfer the determination of our salaries to IPSA on a statutory basis. As I said at business questions last week, the Government intend to commence that section shortly. If, in future, the House wants to overturn any recommendations, it will require primary legislation, not a 90-minute debate such as we are having this evening.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Given the self-denying ordinance that the Leader of the House is proposing today for salaries, will he give a commitment that he will bring in primary legislation to ensure that there will be no increase in allowances for the next two years under IPSA, or is this the same old story that we have had in the past of holding the salary in a blaze of glory, and turning around and seeing allowances increased?

[Sir George Young]

There is no intention of doing that.

The Government’s policy is to have a public sector pay freeze for those earning more than £21,000 a year. Members of Parliament clearly earn more than that. I think that it would be unacceptable for those earning just more than £21,000 to have no increase and for Members of Parliament earning three times that sum to get a salary increase of about £650. That is why I think it is right this evening to ask the House to freeze our salaries. I very much hope that the House will approve the motion in my name and that of the Deputy Leader of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I have not selected the amendment, so the Question is as on the Order Paper.

22:28

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I think that the House recognises why the Leader of the House has tabled this motion, especially at a time when many in the public sector face a pay freeze, as he pointed out. To put it starkly, the public would find it hard to understand it if we got a pay rise when they are not getting a pay rise. That is why we will support the motion.

As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, we face this decision because the Senior Salaries Review Body is currently responsible for determining MPs’ pay, and it sets the salary in line with salaries in the civil service, using a fixed formula. He was right to point out that the chairman of the SSRB hinted in his letter that it would have done something different if it had not been bound by the formula. However, as the Leader of the House will be aware from the interventions that he took, there is no hiding the unease that Members throughout the House feel at being asked once again to vote on their pay, just when we thought we had got rid of the responsibility following the decision taken by the House in 2008. I therefore welcome what he said at business questions last week when I asked him about his intention to initiate IPSA taking responsibility for MPs’ pay, as is required in the legislation that he mentioned. He said that he would do so “shortly”, and that must be right, because the sooner responsibility is transferred the better, not least because we should not be taking decisions such as this.

Finally, although the motion is only about pay, we will in due course have to consider the question of deferred pay, in other words pensions. It would be very helpful if the Deputy Leader of the House, if it is he who winds up the debate, could say something about how the Government intend to handle the matter in the light of Lord Hutton’s recent report, and about the likely timetable for pensions, too, being handed over to IPSA, subject of course to the House being fully satisfied about the protection of acquired rights.

22:31

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is absolute agony that we are having this debate this evening after we have had such a fantastic and informed debate on Libya. It goes to prove that there is never, ever a good time to talk about MPs’ pay and conditions.

However, the debate comes under the heading “Boring but important”. Let us cast our minds back to May 2009, when this House and this democracy that we love so much went through a period of enormous upheaval. I remember that there were great protests outside Parliament—nothing to do with pay and expenses, but enormously voluminous protests. I used to stand in the yard listening to the protests and imagine what it must have been like at the Bastille 220 years earlier in 1789, with the hordes outside. I would close my eyes and think, “Will I get the piano wire or will I get the guillotine?” I think my constituents were rather wishing I would get both and they would both be very slow. It really was an appalling time for this country—this proud democracy brought low by something as innocuous as pay and expenses.

We all vowed in 2009 that we had learned our lessons. Indeed, in 2008 we had started the process of repair by, on 3 July, voting to remove responsibility for pay from our hands. The process of reform was in train. I took great relief, during the debates in 2008 and 2009, from the fact that at last we were not going to have these agonising evenings in the House, but here we are again, having another agonising evening.

We, as Members of Parliament, are brilliant at not only setting our own bear traps but then jumping into them. I feel that that is what we are doing tonight, because the motion has been introduced by the Executive. I know that MPs, both those who served from 2005 to 2010 and our new colleagues, are much chastened by what happened in 2009. We are reforming ourselves from within, and we are not actually as stupid as some people would have us believe. I have absolutely no desire or ambition to accept a 1% pay rise. All that I sincerely wish is that the Back Benchers of this place had been allowed to propose their own motion.

I understood that there was cross-party agreement between the Opposition, the party of government and our colleagues in government, the Liberal Democrats, and I thought there was a real desire and move for a Back-Bench motion that would allow us, as Back Benchers, to do the right thing by this country and our constituents by postponing the pay rise for two years. I am therefore saddened that the Executive have brought forward tonight’s motion. Much play has been made of the new politics, which is not about expediency because expediency gets us into such trouble. The motion is expedient and it lays a future bear trap for us. I wish that we were not here, once again, discussing the tedious subject of our pay and conditions.

22:34

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Here we are again. On 3 July 2008, the Speaker did not select my amendment. Last year, the same thing happened. Today, again, the Speaker has not selected my amendment. Democracy has not been the better for it. My amendment in 2008 would have prevented the practice of flipping homes. My amendment tonight would have reaffirmed the principle that we should not determine our own pay.

I will not vote for or against my pay tonight, and I urge others to do the same—not to abstain, but to refuse to vote. The motion removes the principle of our not determining our pay. It is not simply a decision on the SSRB proposals; it revokes the decision on independence without anything more than a vague promise that, at some stage, the Government will get around to tabling amendments to have IPSA set pay. The Government have had plenty of time in recent weeks to table such an amendment, and they have chosen not to do so.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

If everything is to go to IPSA, so be it, but I am in the position, as a new Member, of not knowing what will happen to my staff pay 11 days hence, from 1 April. That is a disgraceful situation in which to be. None of us can work out what will happen to our staff. I have to renew contracts in 11 days, and I do not know what to do.

[John Mann]

That shows the muddle that the Government and Parliament have got into. Instead of resolving those problems, whether one or other of us likes it or not, in a way that is crystal clear, within which we can work and that the public can see, we go round in circles. Here we go again.

Having been through the pain, which is not yet over, of the expenses scandal, and eventually decided that we should not determine our own pay, and having all allegedly agreed the principle, we are suddenly back where we started—deciding our own pay. The issue tonight is not the amount of the pay—that is a small part of the matter. Of course, it will always be important to Members and even more important to the general public. However, to breach the principle so unnecessarily and cack-handedly lays us open to ridicule. The House should get its act together on pay and expenses and say that we will not break the principle of not setting our pay, conditions or expenses, because that is precisely the problem that got us into the scandal in the first place. We must learn the lesson of putting it outside, keeping it there and not interfering with it. Whether it is comfortable or uncomfortable, whatever the level, whether we like it or the general public do not like, it should be determined independently, not by us.

I appeal to Members to refuse to vote either way on the pay, thereby not breaching the principle that it should be determined independently or agreeing that it should be brought back in-house because if we do that, we will rue the day, and pay and expenses will come back again and again to bite us. We should put that behind us.

22:39

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is universally accepted by anthropologists that one sign of higher animal intelligence is the ability to learn from experience. As the Leader of the House moved the motion, one was inclined to ask, “Have we in the House of Commons learned nothing from the calamity of the expenses scandal?”

I agree with hon. Members who said that the general public must be dismayed at Parliament’s continuing inability to put its house in order in relation to such matters, especially in view of the tumultuous events out there in the real world. How can we earn public respect and work in the national interest to solve this country’s acute economic problems and to reform public services, let alone to assert Britain’s place in the world, which we debated earlier, when we have so abjectly and continually failed to sort out our immensely damaging internal difficulties?

As the Leader of the House pointed out, after the expenses scandal, Parliament charged Sir John Baker, the then retiring SSRB chairman, to conduct a review. He was asked to make recommendations for a mechanism by which the pay and pensions of MPs could be independently determined—one that did not involve MPs voting on their own pay. His report, which was published in July 2008, recommended that MPs’ pay should be uprated annually in line with the public sector average earnings index, with a more general review of MPs’ salaries by the SSRB to take place in the first year of each Parliament.

That was supposed to be the end of the matter, with the embarrassing spectacle of MPs setting their salaries becoming a thing of the past—or so we thought. Of course, the unredacted receipts were published by The Daily Telegraph in May 2009, and suddenly the entire political class blissfully agreed on the root of the problem. Members and political commentators acknowledged that the widespread misuse by many MPs—I am afraid that it was many MPs—of second home and staff budgets, which as we all know helped to terminate several dozen parliamentary careers, came about largely as a result of Parliament voting down independently awarded salary increases.

For many years, the Executive have been overly concerned by the immediate public reaction to headline salary uplifts. As a result, subsequently, a blind eye was continually turned to the widespread misuse of the parliamentary expenses scheme, which became an income-enhancing allowance. Since the ground-breaking public revelations in The Daily Telegraph, the universal refrain from Parliament’s great and good—the Speaker’s Commission, the Members Estimate Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee—was that the expenses system had been rotten for decades, yet those same MPs did their utmost to block meaningful reform of the now much-maligned expenses system, almost until the very day when The Daily Telegraph first published those receipts. Indeed, all the systematically suspect claims were defended resolutely by those distinguished, senior parliamentarians as being within the rules—which parliamentarians had made.

Small wonder that those parliamentarians waged such a disastrous, protracted campaign in the High Court between 2006 and 2009—in all of our names, I am afraid—to prevent the publication of expense receipts. They knew full well the public reaction that would follow.

I am particularly sorry to say that the Leader of the House, in his previous role as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, was one such senior parliamentarian. That makes his attempt to drive through the motion tonight all the more regrettable. Of all people, he knows how we got here. On 30 April 2009, just two weeks before The Daily Telegraph balloon went up, the Leader of the House, in league with other politicians, put down a serious—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I very gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I understand the issues that surround the motion, but we have a time-constrained debate, and it is incumbent on him to focus on the terms of the motion rather than ancillary matters.

[Mr Field]

I was coming to the end of this passage, Mr Speaker.

At that juncture, however, the Leader of the House allowed the glaring loophole in relation to second home allowances for MPs in suburban seats to be overlooked, on the basis that the independent review that we are now awaiting should report first. I only wish that today he was such a keen supporter of independent reviews. I believe that the independent salary review that the SSRB and IPSA were due to commence in the next few months would also have provided a long overdue opportunity to rebalance and aggregate MPs’ remuneration away from the byzantine and almost corrupt allowances scheme, towards a more upfront and transparent salary, which is why it is particularly regrettable that the second part of the motion is being proposed tonight. I fear that that opportunity will now be lost.

For the sake of one day’s good newspaper headlines, Parliament has unwisely insisted that we set our own salary again and impose this two-year freeze. As I mentioned earlier, the calamitous expenses system began in just such a way by rejecting independent salary reviews and then boosting allowances as some form of compensation. In my view, even the mere suspicion that this was happening again would be totally unacceptable and disastrous, as we try to build public trust. Such a process of rebuilding will be difficult enough in the years ahead, given the constant backdrop of high-profile criminal cases currently going to the courts. I do not wish to prejudge any of the other expenses conflicts, but I suspect that potentially there are several more former and sitting Members whose affairs will move from police investigation to the Crown Prosecution Service and then the Crown court in the months ahead.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The difficulty here is that the hon. Gentleman has got a prepared text, to which he is sticking closely. However, I have already advised him that he must not dilate on matters that do not relate directly to the motion. I feel sure that being an experienced parliamentarian he will now turn to the matters within the motion. If he does not wish to do so, he can remain in his seat.

[Mr Field]

I shall take on board what you say, Mr Speaker, although—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I make it clear that it is not a question of taking on board what I say? I am saying to the hon. Gentleman, without fear of contradiction, that I have given a ruling, and to that ruling he will adhere.

[Mr Field]

I shall adhere to your ruling, Mr Speaker.

If we pass the motion on salaries tonight, amidst a self-satisfied blaze of glory, it will be essential that we also resolve that, whatever changes are made to the IPSA allowances scheme, none will come into effect until April 2013. In short, it must be a two-year freeze on both salaries and all allowances.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the best thing that could happen tonight would be for the Deputy Leader of the House to withdraw the motion? We have been talking about a really important matter tonight, and it is absurd that we start talking about Members’ salaries and expenses. It should be done on a different day.

[Mr Field]

I am inclined to agree, but I accept that business has to go through and that we are heading towards the end of the tax year. It is regrettable, however, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Given the importance of what was discussed earlier tonight, this seems like very small beer indeed. It is regrettable that it has come to this pass.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend feels that this is small beer. Some of us feel that we have asked public servants to take a cut in their salary and now we are offering to do the same. Can we not just vote on it as quickly as possible?

[Mr Field]

I suspect that it might not necessarily come to a Division, because we all feel this way. There are difficulties and concerns. I take on board the concern that we are telling many public servants that they should not have an increase. However, we have an independent review mechanism in place, and we should stick to it. I believe that the public need a guarantee from the Government that those strictures that apply to salaries will also apply to all other allowances. If the freeze over the next two years is to apply also to the level and nature of the allowances, we can at least look our electorate firmly in the eye and say, “We are all in this together”.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Has not the hon. Gentleman contradicted himself? He made the appropriate point earlier that in the past MPs supplemented their salaries with allowances, but now he is suggesting that we freeze allowances and salaries. That means that people working for MPs and being paid less than £21,000 per year will be punished as a result of a decision in a matter unrelated to the motion.

[Mr Field]

I was referring to the allowances that are directly relevant to Members of Parliament, as opposed to the salary allowances.

Let me conclude, because others wish to speak and the hour is late on what has been a busy and momentous day in the House. The collective damage that has been done to the reputation of politics in this country is such that it is our duty to ensure that Parliament is never again silenced on these matters. I fear that the motion before us tonight is the very opposite of the leadership that we require if public trust is to be fully restored.

22:50

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I have never before spoken in a Members’ salary debate; I trust I will never have to again. Today we have been debating what the armed forces will be doing in Libya. As Chair of the Select Committee on Defence—albeit not speaking on behalf of that Committee—I have only one point to make. For the armed forces to receive no pay rise and for politicians to receive a pay rise would be just so unacceptable in the country that we could not possibly think of allowing it to happen tonight.

22:51

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Like the last speaker, I have never spoken in a pay and conditions debate in this place, and I do not think that I have voted in any of them either, on the basis that I did not think that it was ever correct that Parliament should set its own wages.

The problem I have is this. It may be a criticism of the Leader of the House—[Interruption]—who may be more interested in talking to the Whip—but I want to say how disappointed I am that this proposal is what he and his deputy have come up with. If this proposal is the best that these two intelligent men—both of whom I respect—have come up with, they must have been wasting their time doing other things of lesser importance. It is an embarrassment, because it is taking away independence—my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is quite correct. The raison d’être is that the Senior Salaries Review Body was compelled to take into account a formula that led to this decision, when what was required was a motion to remove that condition on the Senior Salaries Review Body and then let it do its independent job without the constraints of that formula. That would still have resulted in an independent decision, but what all this has turned into is, sadly, an embarrassing decision.

I respect what was said on behalf of those who have taken a pay freeze, particularly those in the armed forces, who deserve to be paid much more, but really, this issue is about showing that a political decision has been taken to have a pay freeze, thereby garnering what I might assume would be some public applause, along with condemnation of those who might have wanted to take a pay rise. That is what this issue has turned into—a political decision—when it should have been about removing any constraints on an independent body to set the correct level. If that level was in line with a pay freeze for the public sector above £21,000, that would have been correct, but it would also have been independent.

However, to do what is proposed is to demean the House. If that means that the proposals have been drawn up in a short time scale, then what have the Leader of the House’s office and his deputy been doing all this time, if they knew that it would come to this? It is an embarrassment; therefore, I am sorry to say that the Leader of the House and his deputy have been found at fault. If they had any sense, they would withdraw the motion and bring forward a correct motion before the end of the financial year.

22:53

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I would like to make a couple of comments entirely on my own behalf, not on behalf of my colleagues. I have sat through these debates for over 25 years. This House has never been served by Governments of any colour interfering in a process that we had already agreed should be resolved independently.

There are five written ministerial statements today dealing with pay reviews—for the armed forces, school teachers, NHS workers and prison officers, and for senior salaries. As it happens, the Government are accepting the independent pay review recommendations in each of those reviews. In the past, we have regularly asked people to advise on teachers’ pay or prison officers’ pay, but then the Government have interfered. They have asked for a review, but then asked us to vote against what an independent adjudicator has said a certain group of public servants should receive. It really is not possible to justify having one rule for one group and one rule for another.

When the Government have asked me to interfere with an independent pay review body, I have never voted for the Government and against the independent pay review body. It seems to me that that would be entirely contradictory. I shall not support the Government tonight either, because I do not think it is possible to justify setting up an independent process and then not following it. The Leader and Deputy Leader of the House, whom I respect, know that in the last Parliament the Labour Leader of the House did not accept the independent Senior Salaries Review Body recommendation in its entirety but tweaked it, interfered with it, changed it, and came back with her own proposal. As a result, we have a half-independent recommendation. The independent body is not able to give its free and unfettered view—it chose a different basket of pay comparators—but even that tweaked version is now being interfered with by the Government.

I understand the politics. The politics are that tonight we would have been given a 1% pay increase when we are asking other people earning more than £21,000 a year not to have that pay increase. However, the problem would not have existed if the Government had always accepted that the independent pay review body should recommend salaries for us as public servants, as well as for ambulance workers, health workers and so on. In that respect I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and others. It really is not acceptable for us to set a rule one year and break it the next.

When we debated this matter, in 2008, the then shadow Leader of the House—now the Home Secretary—made the position quite clear. She said that more than a year ago it was proposed that MPs should stop voting on their own pay and start looking into ways in which that could be undertaken. One of the important things that we shall be able to do today is take this whole issue away from the House, which is crucial. It is no good presenting one argument when in opposition and then changing it in government.

This is not in the same league as our earlier debate. It is not in the same league as issues of war and peace to do with Libya and so on, which are far more important. However, I hope that in future the Government will take independent advice, that they will apply—above all, for people on low pay—the principle that someone outside this place should advise on salaries and pay, and that we will then take that advice. If we do not, we will undermine our case, and I am afraid that we will not assist the public sector, many of whose employees look to us to set an example to them.

22:57

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) was doing so well until he reached his peroration.

This is a classic case of an immovable object meeting an irresistible force. If there is a vote tonight, I shall go with the irresistible force, namely what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the Chairman of the Defence Committee. It is absolutely inconceivable that Members of Parliament should be given a pay rise at a time when the pay of other public servants, particularly members of the armed forces, is being frozen. That will determine my vote tonight.

[Bob Russell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Lewis]

I will a little later, if the hon. Gentleman will be patient. I do not wish to be derailed from the other half of the equation, which is that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is also absolutely right. It is nonsensical to say that a process will become independent because interfering with it has led to desperately dire consequences in the past, and then to tear up that principle at the first opportunity.

I have only one positive suggestion to make, but I think that it is worth trying. I am not sure whether the Leader of the House will respond to suggestions, but if he does, I hope he will consider this one. I am sure that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority consists of very capable people, but we have heard from no less an authority than the Prime Minister that it may not be there for ever, and we would not wish to give this very important task to a body that may not be with us indefinitely.

I have a rather simple suggestion. Why cannot the pay of hon. Members be linked once and for all to an agreed level of civil servant, whatever that level may be, so that if they get a pay freeze, we get a pay freeze? [Interruption.] I hear whispers around the Chamber that we have done that already, but we evidently have not done it efficiently enough if the result is, as the Leader of the House has explained, that their pay is being frozen while ours is not. I simply say that we should be linked once and for all to an agreed rate of civil service pay that cannot be interfered with so that when the Government impose a pay freeze on public employees for right and proper reasons, we will be affected by it, and when they do not we will not. It is as simple as that and I cannot see the problem.

23:00

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was right to agree with what our right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) said. It would be impossible for the House to accept a pay increase in these circumstances. The recommendation for people in the national health service who earn below £21,000 a year is that they should receive an extra £250 in a year. For us to take 1% on our pay would not work in these circumstances.

I do not know why people are afraid of setting their own pay, but that is not the system we have decided on. We have decided that it will be done through independent determination by IPSA as we had previously decided that it would be done through independent determination by the SSRB, but that is not the subject of the motion. As has rightly been said, we cannot run both organisations, so which should we drop? Clearly, we have to drop the one that we set up first, which was the SSRB. If it does not do this work, IPSA will, but I do not have confidence that IPSA will get it right. Let me briefly make a recommendation to it: why not set a rate of pay that comes into effect after the next election and have no increase during the Parliament? That would solve an awful lot of problems. We would not have to compare ourselves with anyone else year on year and no one would get an increase during a Parliament.

On allowances, it is wrong that IPSA has left us waiting so long for the money that our staff are going to be earning in a month’s time, but again that is not an issue for today. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) about freezing all allowances, but he will not mind that. When remarks were made about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and second homes, I did not recognise the factual basis of what was said. Perhaps it would be possible for the person who made that remark to communicate it to my right hon. Friend and to me and then we will know what that was all about.

Essentially, the way to solve the problem raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) about not wanting to vote for or against the motion is not to force a vote and to let the motion go through.

23:02

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), I agree that we should not vote on this issue tonight, but from a different perspective. I do not think it is for the Executive to bring forward this motion. If such a motion is to be brought forward, it should be done by the Backbench Business Committee so that it is Parliament bringing it forward and deciding whether to accept the pay increase.

I have a second reason for thinking that the motion should not be proceeded with tonight, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will not force it to a vote and will instead come back with a different motion—or, better still, let the Backbench Business Committee bring forward a motion. We have had such an important debate today and I have been agonising over the weekend about which way to vote; in the end I did not vote at all. It seems absolutely absurd to the British public that we are wasting one and a half hours on this tonight when we could have continued with the main debate, which is what we should have done. I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to withdraw the motion.

23:04

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I am conscious that, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), all the speakers in the debate so far were Members of the House before the last election. I was not, so I bring a slightly different perspective.

In the run-up to the election, partly, for obvious reasons, because of the constituency in which I was standing—Bury North—the expenses scandal and the issue of Members’ pay were raised frequently. In light of the decision taken in 2008, I was able to say, “Well, Members voting on their pay is not an issue any more; I will not get involved in such matters.” That is what I was saying to my would-be constituents in the run-up to the election, so I have a dilemma tonight.

I have resolved that dilemma in this way. On the one hand, an independent review body has suggested a 1% increase, and on the other, public sector employees earning more than £21,000 are subject to a pay freeze. We should accept the motion for two reasons. First, it is common sense that the public would be amazed and astonished, no matter what excuses were given, if we somehow arranged—that is how they would see it; we would be arranging it—to be treated differently from the rest of the public sector. That is one reason why we should accept that we should be in the same position as the rest of the public sector and accept a pay freeze.

The other reason is that I believe in the sovereignty of Parliament, and constituents know that ultimately, whatever we may say about independence, we put those independent people in place, and he who gives can take away. Constituents will not be fooled if we accept the 1% increase and say, “It was all because of an independent body—nothing to do with us, guv.” They will realise that we put that body in place.

The main reason for accepting the motion is common sense, which is always my touchstone. What do the people out there want us to do? There is no doubt that they would not accept it if we agreed to a pay rise. For that reason, I support the motion.

23:07

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I believe that the motion is a retrograde step. Many of us in this place have believed for a long time that we should not decide our own salaries and pensions, and have abstained in debates on them. We thought in 2008 that we were ensuring that a third party would, in effect, decide; we are now yet again bringing the matter back in-house.

The Government’s case has not been helped by the suggestion that the SSRB is in some way not really independent. Its recommendation is linked to a range of salary increases, but those decisions are made outside this place. It is as independent as we are going to get, so I really do not think that that suggestion helps the Government’s case at all.

For the avoidance of doubt, because there will be those outside this place who think that those of us who have spoken against the Government proposals speak from self-interest, let me make it clear that I for one would be happy to donate my increase to charity. The point is not the financial interest; the point is that a number of us fought long and hard to make sure that decisions on those subjects were made outside this place, yet we are once again bringing them into the Chamber. That is a retrograde step that we will regret. The idea of moving this forward through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is not very welcome at all, given IPSA’s track record in certain areas.

We are losing the plot on this issue and have taken a retrograde step. Last year and the year before that we thought that we had solved the situation, but now we are bringing the matter back in-house. That will not serve the long-term interests of the Chamber or the reputation of this Parliament.

23:10

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I do not want to detain the House for long—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is clearly the best reaction I am going to get this evening.

I detect throughout the House a real desire not to be having this debate at all. Having to debate our own pay is not good for the House at any time, and particularly not after the debate that we have just had. We are where we are, however. We are caught between a rock and a hard place. Last week, I went into my local hospital and members of staff there told me that they were genuinely worried about how they were going to pay their mortgages. A pay freeze for the armed forces has already been mentioned. I do not think that anyone here believes that MPs could take a pay rise in those circumstances.

Members have rightly said that the whole question of our pay needs to be taken away from this House and given to an independent body. If we are honest, we have to admit that Governments have always interfered in the recommendations of pay review bodies—that has certainly been the case in all the years that I have been in the House. We need finally to get away from that. The solution is not as simple as linking our pay to a grade in the civil service, as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) suggested. We tried that, but the grade was abolished. That is how we got into many of the problems that we faced later.

We need to get this matter out of the House very quickly, and to establish an independent system for setting our pay. Having listened to the debate, I believe that that is overwhelmingly the view of Members. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will not simply tell us that that will happen “shortly”; I hope that he will tell us when it will be done, because no one wants to be in this position ever again.

23:12

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

Hear, hear to what the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said at the end of her speech: I do not think that we want to be in this position again.

I want to pick up on something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said about pay review bodies. Yes, it is true that a succession of reports from such bodies has been accepted by the Government. They deal with teachers, the Prison Service and the health service. Every single one of them says that there should be no increase in pay this year for those who earn more than £21,000. Only one pay review body is proposing an increase for people who earn considerably more than £21,000, and that is the one that deals with Members of Parliament. Why is that happening? Because it is not an entirely independent review, as we have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons, and because it was pre-emptively interfered with by the decision of the previous Government and the previous House in setting the parameters for our pay, which has resulted in the anomalous position of the proposal of a 1% pay increase for MPs while everyone else in the public service gets a pay freeze. That is why we have had to come back to the House today.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

On a point of clarification, there has been a lot of disquiet in the debate about Members of Parliament having to vote on their own pay. Can my hon. Friend confirm whether there will be an annual vote on our pay when IPSA takes over this matter?

[Mr Heath]

There certainly will not be—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) can scoff, but there will not be. It will be a genuinely independent process.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) asked why we had not tabled an amendment. There is no need for an amendment in order to transfer the matter to IPSA, an entirely independent body, because the legislation is already in place. All that we need is a commencement order. He went on to say that he would refuse to vote this evening. Let me tell him, and anyone who is minded to do the same, that if the House refuses to vote for the motion this evening, we will have a 1% pay increase, and those hon. Members will have to justify that pay increase to their constituents at a time of national constraint. I do not believe that that would be easy to do.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

If the Deputy Leader of the House is so keen for an independent body such as IPSA to control MPs’ salaries, why does he not hand that over from 1 April this year?

[Mr Heath]

We shall do so when IPSA and the House are ready, and it will be done shortly. We have already given that reply, and I repeat it again. Incidentally, may I tell the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that he will soon receive a reply on pensions, but we have made it clear that MPs’ pensions will be informed by the Hutton review in exactly the same way as pensions in the rest of the public service? It is a matter that the House will soon have the opportunity to discuss.

I was extremely disappointed by part of the contribution from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) in which he appeared to impugn the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. That is entirely regrettable and unjustifiable, given his record in opposition and in government, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to withdraw that suggestion.

[Mr Mark Field]

I was simply trying to inform the House of events that took place two years ago, and was in no way trying to impugn the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I was just pointing out that in his former guise he had made the case for independent reviews very strongly in amendments that he had tabled, and I hoped that he would do the same again.

May I briefly ask the deputy Leader of the House whether, if there is a salary freeze in the public sector from April 2013 to April 2014, he will do his best, once MPs’ salaries are in IPSA’s hands, to stop IPSA putting up those salaries, despite the fact that, by that stage, IPSA will be the entirely independent body that he believes the SSRB is not?

[Mr Heath]

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say what he said that he had said about my right hon. Friend—I heard something quite different—but we shall have to look at the Official Report to be sure.

Once IPSA has control of Members’ salaries, it will be entirely independent and it will not be for me or for anyone else to tell it how to do its job. Independent assessment is right—we all agree about that. In principle, Members of Parliament should not vote on their own pay. But in a House that does not flinch from having an opinion on the remuneration of others, we cannot just ignore the perception or consequences of an increase of our own pay.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I do not think that a single Member of Parliament wants this wretched 1% pay rise. What we wanted was the chance as Members of Parliament to do the right thing and table our own motion to decline it. What we are getting, I am afraid, in a robust speech from the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, is Executive posturing at our expense and it does him no favours at all.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but I think that the House has been given the opportunity to decide whether it wants that 1% pay increase, and it must make that decision.

[Michael Connarty]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is approaching a response to the point that I made. Has it not come to everyone’s notice recently that there might be a problem with public sector expenditure? It has been parroted in every speech in the House since the election. Why did the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House not introduce something to free the SSRB from the formula in which it was trapped, enabling it to make an independent recommendation on our salaries and on which we would not have to vote? Where has the hon. Gentleman been sleeping?

[Mr Heath]

There are two answers to that. First, I am not a member of the SSRB, so I did not know what recommendation it was going to make. If we tried to adjust the so-called independent formula, would we not be having precisely the same debate about the Executive interfering with the will of the House, which had decided to give to that independent body the right to set our pay? It would be said that we were coming in with a formula of our own. I can just imagine the speeches that would be made, and they would be very similar to the ones that have been made this evening.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster talked about animal intelligence. It occurs to me that if there were a lemmings review body that independently came to the view that a headlong dash into a freezing fjord would be for the best, lemmings ought at least to have an opinion on the matter. What we are providing this evening is an opportunity for Members to consider the consequences before complying with the decision.

In this case, the review body has made it plain that it would not have made the recommendation that it did unless it was constrained to do so. It would have independently come to a view that there should be no increase in our pay this year. I find it difficult to believe that any Member of the House thinks we should be treated differently and significantly better than others working in the public sector.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am staggered that I should have to make this comment: no one in the House is suggesting that we should take that 1%.

[Mr Heath]

In that case I am extremely pleased, as it means that we will quickly move to a conclusion of this difficult matter. The commitment to independent review is retained. The anomalous position this year is recognised. We do to ourselves what others have had done to them. It is not a decision for Government; it is a decision for the House. Members must make up their own minds, but in my view— and I do not think I am alone—it is a no-brainer. I hope all right hon. and hon. Members will support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(1) For the period beginning with 1 April 2011 and ending with the relevant day, the rates of—

(a) Members’ salaries, and

(b) additional salaries payable to Members under Resolutions of this House in respect of service as chairs of select or general committees, shall be the same as those salaries as at 31 March 2011.

(2) In paragraph (1) the “relevant day” means—

(a) the day before the day on which the first determination of Members’ salaries by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority comes into effect, or

(b) 31 March 2013, whichever is the earlier.

(3) Paragraphs (9), (10) and (12)(b) of the Resolution of 3 July 2008 (Members’ Salaries (No. 2) (Money)) cease to have effect on the day this Resolution is passed.

(4) The remaining provisions of that Resolution cease to have effect on 1 April 2011.

Business without Debate

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

sittings of the house

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Tuesday 22 March, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—(Sir George Young.)

business, innovation and skills

Ordered,

That Gregg McClymont be discharged from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and Dan Jarvis be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

procedure

Ordered,

That Angela Smith be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Thomas Docherty be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

transport

Ordered,

That Kelvin Hopkins be discharged from the Transport Committee and Jim Dobbin be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Cawston Park Hospital

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)

23:22

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for responding to the debate and for being present at this late hour. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) and I would like to raise with the House and the Solicitor-General the experiences of Mr Andrew Breeze, a former NHS worker and founding clinician of an independent and innovative psychiatric hospital, Cawston Park.

Mr Breeze’s experiences have been documented in both the regional and the national press, notably by my hon. Friend in an article in The Mail on Sunday on 2l November 2009. Although Mr Breeze is not one of my own constituents, his brother Paul is, and I have agreed to support this important matter, as it has wide-ranging consequences for independent health care and, indeed, many entrepreneurial projects requiring major capital investment.

In late 2003, Mr Breeze set up Cawston Park. He and the other founding clinicians had all previously worked within the NHS and had felt constrained in seeking to provide high-quality, effective care that provided value for money. They therefore seized the opportunity to move into the independent sector to achieve their vision.

The purpose of Cawston Park hospital was to provide specialist psychiatric care and treatment to severely mentally ill patients, many of whom could not be properly treated within the existing NHS structures. In November 2006, the hospital was recognised as having achieved outstanding clinical successes owing to its unique approach to patient care and treatment. Patients who had previously been in other hospitals for lengthy periods of time were being successfully discharged from Cawston Park hospital and it had become apparent that it was saving the NHS hundreds of thousands of pounds annually. Feedback from NHS primary care trusts was extremely positive and referrals extended across the whole of the UK.

However, that period of great accomplishment and acclaim quickly turned sour because of internal difficulties with a senior member of staff. I do not wish to inform the House of every sordid detail I have been shown, but the allegations range from theft to an extra-marital affair with another staff member, together with a range of other grievous matters. As a result there was an internal investigation, followed by disciplinary proceedings, which took place on 16 November 2005.

During this time, the staff member in question had decided to leave Chancellor Care to set up a rival facility to Cawston Park hospital. He had been found to be removing hospital property and recruiting Cawston Park staff to his new venture. A disciplinary hearing was duly set up by Mr Breeze, but the gentleman telephoned one hour before the hearing was due to take place to inform Mr Breeze that he was resigning without notice as he did not want a dismissal on his record when he applied to the Healthcare Commission for a licence to operate a rival facility.

Six weeks later, the Nursing and Midwifery Council wrote to the ex-employee to notify him that it was going to investigate the reasons surrounding his departure from Cawston Park. However, by not re-registering as a psychiatric nurse, which I understand he still has not done, he was able to prevent the NMC investigating further. Later that day he contacted the NHS Counter Fraud Service through its hotline to make what turned out to be malicious allegations.

A subsequent statement was made to NHS Counter Fraud by the female nurse who purportedly had personal relations with the ex-employee, which was considered to be an independent corroboration of the initial allegations. Contemporaneously, a patient had reported the ex-employee to the protection of vulnerable adults scheme, which is now under the auspices of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, for abusive behaviour towards patients. This might have served to illustrate further the character of the accuser.

What followed was a three-year investigation primarily involving three Government agencies and one private company, Lloyds Development Capital. More than 50 police officers were involved in a high-profile dawn raid, which I have learned today was leaked to the press. Some of them were drafted in from outside Norfolk. The defendants were interviewed three times for more than 20 hours. More than 80 witnesses were interviewed, some more than once, concluding in the commissioning of four expert witnesses and the production of four lengthy reports, most notably the Badcock report, whose author admitted that he was not an expert in the field.

NHS Counter Fraud worked on the case for six months before handing it over to the local police in July 2006. During that time, NHS Counter Fraud had concluded that fraud had occurred and Mr Breeze was subsequently charged with conspiracy to defraud the NHS of £2.3 million. The case alleged that the directors had charged the NHS for additional care that had never been provided.

Mr Breeze’s contention is that the police were misled by NHS Counter Fraud convincing them that a fraud had in fact taken place. His argument was as follows. First, in his meeting with NHS Counter Fraud on 16 November 2010 he was informed that it had come to the conclusion that fraud was occurring. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North was in attendance. Secondly, in an interview under caution the police made it obvious that they believed that that fraud had occurred. Thirdly, Norfolk police did not have a fraud squad so the case was handed to its major investigation team, which was more accustomed to dealing with murders. No one in that team was a fraud specialist. Fourthly, the police assumed that NHS Counter Fraud knew how a private sector psychiatric hospital operated clinically. That may seem reasonable, but it turned out to be incorrect. Fifthly and finally, NHS Counter Fraud did not advise the police which type of psychiatric expert they should go to, so they went to the wrong type and received factually incorrect and misleading information.

As a result of those events, Mr Breeze and his solicitor, Richard Smyth, came to the conclusion that the police were constructing a case from poor evidence rather than trying to detect whether a crime had been committed. I must ask the Solicitor-General if that is how the system should function.

When Andrew Breeze met NHS Counter Fraud on 16 November 2010, the only documentation that could be produced supporting the fraud allegations was several witness statements taken by the Counter Fraud team, which it had previously refused to disclose to Mr Breeze despite repeated requests to do so. One of those statements was from the original accuser; another was from the female nurse with whom he was in a relationship and setting up the rival project; and another was from a member of staff who had worked at Cawston Park hospital and been recruited for that new venture. Additionally, that individual had invested £10,000 in the new enterprise. There were three other statements taken from ex-staff who had left Cawston Park disgruntled in the past. One does not need a legal education to question the quality of those witnesses and the numerous vested interests that will have been at play.

In the light of those connections, perhaps the police investigations might have discerned something amiss in the accusations at an early stage. When asked by Andrew Breeze why the NHS Counter Fraud team had not carried out basic and obvious lines of inquiry that would have clearly showed fraud was not taking place, its response was that it did not have the resources in place to do that. Mr Breeze had that meeting taped and is having it transcribed.

The police then investigated from July 2006 to February 2008, at which point Andrew Breeze was charged with conspiracy to defraud the NHS. The police now refuse to disclose their case summary, which was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service prior to the decision to charge Mr Breeze. His freedom of information request has been rejected.

What is of significant interest is the 22 April 2009 computer forensic review prepared by James Coulthard from Stroz Friedberg. A summary of his conclusions are as follows:

“Computers relating to”

Mr. Breeze’s accuser

“appear not to have been examined…Norfolk Constabulary Computer Crime Unit have lost digital evidence from exhibits, which cannot be replaced. Norfolk Constabulary Computer Crime Unit supplied defective and incomplete digital evidence to the defence without verifying the integrity of the evidence on more than one occasion. The lack of key exhibits in this case makes it impossible for the defence to effectively investigate the claims of document falsification by BREEZE and WILSON.”

Does the Solicitor-General share my concern about the implications of those events?

The result was that Cawston Park’s financial backers, Lloyds Development Capital, exercised its increased rights under the terms of the management buy-out, which stated that, if allegations of fraud were brought to its attention, it then had the power to dismiss Andrew Breeze from his post of chief executive. It subsequently did so and brought in Lesley Reardon-Denton, someone who had no clinical experience in psychiatry, to run the business in Mr Breeze’s absence.

On the instructions of Lloyds Development Capital, Ms Reardon-Denton instigated an internal inquiry by bringing in what she described as an “independent” expert, Christopher Hird, to produce a report, which heavily criticised Mr Breeze’s management of Cawston Park and was used to dismiss him. It later transpired that Mr Hird was not independent, having been a long-standing employee of Lesley Reardon-Denton in a business of which she was chief executive in London. The prosecution subsequently ditched the report, when its independence was questioned, during the trial.

Lloyds’ resulting decision meant that Mr Breeze went on to lose his entire investment, which the police valued at £9.4m. That seems to me a grotesque injustice which is bound to deter other entrepreneurs.

A further point of note is the conduct of Zurich Insurance. Cawston Park had directors’ and officers’ liability insurance when it carried out the management buy-out. This was meant to cover all the legal costs if any member was accused of fraud. However, in a letter dated 9 October 2007, Zurich informed Mr Breeze that it was reneging and refused to pay. It deemed the policy null and void on the slightly odd grounds that Cawston Park did not inform it that the directors were involved in criminal activity when the policy was taken out some time previously. We should note that, at this point, Mr Breeze had not been charged. Zurich went on to say:

“Given that the criminal wrong doing appears on any view to pre-date the retro date in the policy, our clients do not feel able to continue indemnifying defence costs.”

Mr Breeze was unable to fight this decision privately, as the police had frozen all his assets, thus not allowing him to pay for legal advice. Legal aid eventually took over, but at an estimated cost of £2 million. Should not legal aid be persuading Zurich to honour its policy and pay what is due? Should the taxpayer even be liable?

Trial proceedings began in April 2009, but before the prosecution could complete outlining their case, the judge brought the trial to a close because they could not offer sufficient evidence. In his closing speech, the judge made complimentary comments about Mr Breeze, including:

“You entered this courtroom on the 20th April as a clinician of exemplary character. You leave it vindicated with your good name intact and your head held high”,

and:

“I hope that no professional or other obstacle will remain to hinder your early return to work in the field of psychiatric healthcare, should you wish to do so. You are a talented man with much still to offer your peers and patients.”

Regrettably, Cawston Park hospital never recovered from the investigations by NHS Counter Fraud and Norfolk constabulary. It finally went into administration, with the investigation process being cited as the reason for its closure. Despite the judge’s comments, Andrew Breeze has had obstacles put in his way that have prevented him returning to the field of psychiatric health care.

This tragic story touches on numerous legal, social and political issues that need to be addressed. They have potentially far-reaching implications for entrepreneurs, particularly with respect to the Government’s programme of health reform. The first issue is the role of the three organisations, which, although independent of each other, failed to carry out basic lines of inquiry. Although the CPS clearly stated that there was no evidence to support the allegations and that the case should never have reached the stage that it did, it continued to assert that there were five indications of dishonesty. A letter from the CPS to Mr Breeze concluded:

“1. There are some factors that indicate dishonesty, which include a body of witness evidence to show a lack of understanding or knowledge of extra care by staff that one would expect to be involved in administering that type of care;

2. Evidence of low staffing levels to give enhanced care;

3. No clear audit trail to show what a patient received to justify the extra charges made;

4. There doesn’t appear to be file notes on the patients' files to cover the extra care aspect of their treatment;

5. In addition, some patients were charged extra care premiums whilst away from Cawston Park.”

Mr Breeze argues that those assertions are based on inaccurate and incomplete information that was provided to the CPS by NHS Counter Fraud and subsequently to the police. The CPS refused to meet Mr Breeze to discuss the matter any further, and Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, stated that any further debate would not progress the matter, having written:

“Further correspondence from you which fails to raise fresh issues will be filed without response.”

Because of these rebuffs, regrettably, Mr Breeze’s reputation remains tarnished.

Furthermore, Norfolk constabulary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission have denied any wrongdoing, even though the judge ruled that the allegations against Mr Breeze and his hospital’s finance director were unfounded, and even though the judge said that they left court

“exonerated and as innocent men”.

Both public bodies appear to have failed to take into account the very significant losses, both financial and reputational, suffered by Mr Breeze. Contrary to the judgment, the two men have not been exonerated and remain condemned in the eyes of the bureaucracy.

The next organisation is NHS Counter Fraud. A Parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) revealed that over the previous three-year period, NHS Counter Fraud cost £32.4 million to operate and uncovered £10.1 million of fraud. The operation of NHS Counter Fraud had cost the NHS £22.3 million net over three years, which seems ridiculous.

NHS Counter Fraud has met Andrew Breeze and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North, but has not satisfied either of them that it carried out a competent and comprehensive investigation into the allegations of fraud. Additionally, the NHS Counter Fraud investigation has placed another burden on the taxpayer indirectly, due to the savings that Cawston Park hospital was providing to the NHS year by year. Considering that NHS Counter Fraud was set up in 1998 to save the NHS money, it is ironic that its actions through the course of this case have cost the NHS millions of pounds.

I dread to hear the total amount that this debacle has cost the taxpayer. It is clear that the cost to Mr Breeze, his family and the other individuals arrested or brought to trial goes far beyond quantitative description. What should be noted is that Mr Breeze does not want taxpayer-funded compensation. Despite losing a fortune, he wishes simply to see his name restored and to prevent future travesties of justice. The only reason Mr Breeze would contemplate legal action is to obtain the documents he has consistently been refused in his attempt to clear his name.

The second key issue is that a disgruntled ex-employee, masquerading as a whistleblower, was able to destroy a business and a facility for severely mentally ill patients that had become recognised as a flagship hospital for their treatment. He did so with a financial interest in that outcome. Such episodes are likely to discourage and inhibit entrepreneurial individuals, partnerships, and businesses from embarking on new ventures. This is critical at a time of NHS reform and increasing need. Good entrepreneurs should be encouraged by the state, not permanently condemned and ruined on false charges.

I am deeply concerned that there is still the possibility that exactly the same thing could happen to other entrepreneurs. There have been no external reviews across the organisations concerned, so no lessons have been learned. The state has ruined a thriving business, along with the lives of several committed individuals who have been financially encumbered. There seems to be no mechanism to hold any of the relevant public bodies to account. Each organisation has held its own internal review. The police and NHS Counter Fraud stated that all protocol was followed correctly. The CPS admitted that mistakes were made and that this should never have happened.

For Andrew Breeze to clear his name, it must be acknowledged that the allegations against him were based on inaccurate and incomplete information. The court judgment that fraudulent behaviour was not occurring within Cawston Park must be affirmed. Indeed, it should be stated that dishonesty was never a factor in any of the business dealings within the organisation. My hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk and for Norwich North and I wholeheartedly want Mr Breeze’s name to be cleared by the relevant public bodies. That is the bare minimum he deserves after this pantomime. It would perhaps at least enable him to start again.

I finish with some questions for the Solicitor-General. Will he establish an independent inquiry into the actions in concert of the CPS, NHS Counter Fraud and Norfolk constabulary? Will he further investigate the questionable actions of Lloyds Development Capital, which was directly responsible for the sacking of Mr Breeze and the demise of Cawston Park’s outstanding service to the community? Such an inquiry could create far safer conditions for the entrepreneurs we so desperately need today.

Will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that, after nearly four years, Mr Breeze will receive clarification, along with the documentation he has requested, from NHS Counter Fraud on its role in the fiasco? Will he convene with the CPS to establish Mr Breeze’s innocence in the matter? Will he ensure that any independent inquiry that is set up allows access to all the documentation that Mr Breeze has been requesting for the past two years, particularly the police case summary? Mr Breeze is still waiting for a report from the senior fraud lawyer at the CPS who carried out a review of its decision to charge him initially. He is concerned that, like the recently rejected police case summary, the CPS report will not be made available.

Finally, will the Solicitor-General work to eliminate this Kafkaesque tangle of bungling bureaucracy? The state has ruined a great business, along with its founder, and that should be remedied. More broadly, the state continues to threaten honest entrepreneurs. The instruments of the state should not be allowed to do that in future.

23:45

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

I will speak quickly, to get as much on the record as I possibly can in the short time available to me.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing the debate and thank him for making it possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), who is with me here on the Treasury Bench but who, as a Government Whip, is prevented from speaking, to bring before the House a matter that directly affects one of her constituents, Mr Andrew Breeze.

The debate allows me to answer some important questions on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, for which the Attorney-General and I are accountable to this House. I should also confirm that the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe in this matter is not just altruistic, although it is that as well. Mr Breeze’s brother lives in his constituency, so he has a family interest in the debate.

Andrew Breeze was one of two defendants charged in February 2008 with conspiracy to defraud NHS primary care trusts by charging them for what was called “extra care” for mental health patients at a private hospital, Cawston Park hospital in Norfolk, which was owned by a company in which the defendants had a significant interest. Those activities were said to have taken place in the two years before August 2006. It was alleged by the prosecution that the charges for extra care were criminally dishonest, because that extra care was not in fact provided.

The trial began in April 2009 but was halted in June 2009 when the judge at Ipswich Crown court intervened, resulting in the prosecution bringing the case to a halt by offering no evidence. Mr Breeze was then acquitted of all charges. At the conclusion of the case the judge said to Mr Breeze and his co-accused:

“You leave vindicated with your good name intact and your heads held high.”

I wish to make it clear beyond doubt that that acquittal means that Mr Breeze was, and remains, not guilty of the criminal charges brought against him. On behalf of the CPS, and as Solicitor-General, I associate myself without reservation with the words of the judge, but I go further and say that in so far as Mr Breeze was prosecuted as a consequence of what the CPS did or did not do, I want to place on record for all to see my apologies to him. It has become clear that regardless of whether it was proper to investigate the affairs of Cawston Park in the first place, the prosecution should never have got as far as it did.

I am accountable for the CPS, which was responsible for deciding whether to institute and continue the prosecution in this matter. The police were responsible for investigating the case on the basis of a complaint from NHS Counter Fraud, but not for deciding whether to prosecute. The prosecution in this case should never have reached the stage that it did, and I repeat, without restating verbatim, the judge’s words and my apology.

I should also like to apologise to Mr Breeze for the failure to respond to his letters of complaint sent to the CPS after the trial finished. Mr Breeze eventually felt that he had no option but to present himself in person at the CPS offices, because of the repeated failures to reply to him.

In response to his complaint, the CPS did––very late––conduct a thorough review. It was conducted by a senior lawyer at the CPS, Elizabeth Bailey, who had no prior involvement in the case. She concluded that, in her view, the case should not have resulted in criminal charges. I endorse her conclusions. She found that there was material available in the evidence that could be seen as pointing towards dishonesty, but equally that there were issues, which were known about at the point of charge, that undermined the strength of the case. I will come to those in a moment. Different lawyers can quite properly take different views on the merits of any given case. Elizabeth Bailey in this case believed that, even if the charging decision could be seen as appropriate at the outset, the case should none the less not have been allowed to proceed to trial. She apologised to Mr Breeze by letter dated 26 July 2010 on behalf of the CPS both for the prosecution and for the lack of response to Mr Breeze’s complaint.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe complains that that letter leaves Mr Breeze’s reputation tarnished, whereas the judge in the case told Mr Breeze that he left the court with his reputation intact and his head held high. With respect, since it was a private letter, it cannot be said to have had any public effect and the judge’s words at the end of the trial in 2009 are what will have been publicly remembered. However, in so far as there is any doubt about Mr Breeze’s reputation, I trust that what I have said tonight will make the position abundantly clear.

I gather that Mr Breeze has been in touch separately with Norfolk constabulary, the Information Commissioner’s Office and NHS Counter Fraud. I understand that Norfolk constabulary undertook a systematic review of its investigation under terms of reference agreed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. NHS Counter Fraud has also undertaken its own internal review.

My hon. Friend asked for an independent inquiry. From what I have said, it must follow that I accept that this case raises several concerns. It has, however, been examined both inside and outside the CPS, and I do not believe that another inquiry would reach any new conclusions. The CPS has accepted responsibility for its failings in this case and they are now publicly acknowledged.

The case was not straightforward. There were some 84 witnesses and around 23,000 pages of evidence. The charging decision was approved by the then director of the fraud prosecution service. Both the barristers acting for the prosecution endorsed the decision to proceed. Miss Bailey was asked to consider the case in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors which is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. Her review of the evidence and the information that was available at the point of charge led to the following five conclusions.

First, there was in the hospital a lack of clarity about what the “extra care” charges were for. A better description might have been a “surcharge” for difficult-to-manage patients, but she commented, and I agree, that a lack of clarity is not necessarily indicative of fraud.

Secondly, several people, including Mr Breeze, his co-accused and other officers of the company were being sued by the board of the hospital. The other defendants in the civil action all later gave evidence for the prosecution. They had an interest in the outcome of the criminal case and, as Elizabeth Bailey found, that conflict should have been considered as a significant risk in the criminal case, but it was not. There should have been regular reviews as the case progressed.

Thirdly, in 2005 a due diligence report was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers on behalf of Lloyds TSB Development Capital Ltd, which was due to invest—

23:52

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Ministerial Corrections

Monday 21st March 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 21 March 2011

Care Proceedings

Monday 21st March 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Annette Brooke]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many care proceedings cases in each local authority area are currently open in the family courts; how many were open in each of the last five years; and how many have reached a conclusion (a) in 2010 to date and (b) each of the last five years.

[Official Report, 3 June 2010, Vol. 510, c. 55-59W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Jonathan Djanogly:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on 3 June 2010. The December 2008 figures in Table 1 of the response in relation to care supervision orders outstanding in the Family Proceedings Courts (FPCs) are incorrect.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Djanogly]

Table 1 shows the number of care and supervision cases outstanding as at the end of December in each year from 2005 to 2009 in the Family Proceedings Courts and County Courts of England and Wales. Data are presented by HM Courts Service areas as a local authority area breakdown is not collected centrally and could be obtained only through the inspection of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

[Mr Djanogly]

Table 1 shows the number of care and supervision cases outstanding as at the end of December in each year from 2005 to 2009 in the Family Proceedings Courts and County Courts of England and Wales. Data are presented by HM Courts Service areas as a local authority area breakdown is not collected centrally and could be obtained only through the inspection of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

Prisoners: Sentencing

Monday 21st March 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Gavin Shuker: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people were serving a custodial sentence of (a) five years or fewer, (b) four years or fewer, (c) three years or fewer, (d) two years or fewer and (e) one year or less for each category of offence in the latest period for which figures are available.[32361]

[Official Report, 21 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 1166W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) on 21 December 2010. The figures in the table supplied on the breakdown of the custodial prison population for various sentence lengths by offence group for 30 September 2010 are incorrect.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Blunt]

The following table provides information on custodial sentences in prison establishments in England and Wales by sentence length band and offence category as at 30 September 2010.

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

[Mr Blunt]

The following table provides information on custodial sentences in prison establishments in England and Wales by sentence length band and offence category as at 30 September 2010.

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Prostitution: Newham

Monday 21st March 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Lyn Brown]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many convictions there were for (a) kerb crawling, (b) soliciting for the purposes of prostitution in a public place, (c) keeping a brothel and (d) control of prostitution in respect of offences committed in the London borough of Newham in (i) 2008, (ii) 2009 and (iii) 2010.

[Official Report, 17 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 652-53W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on 17 January 2011. The figures in the table for the number of defendants convicted for keeping a brothel in the Metropolitan police force area were incorrect along with some of the information included in the footnotes that accompanied the table.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Blunt]

The number of defendants found guilty at all courts for selected prostitution related offences in the Metropolitan police force area for the years 2008 to 2009 can be viewed in the table.

Information at borough level is not collated centrally by the Ministry of Justice.

Court proceedings data for 2010 are planned for publication in the spring.

[Mr Blunt]

The number of defendants found guilty at all courts for selected prostitution related offences in the Metropolitan police force area for the years 2008 to 2009 can be viewed in the table.

Information at borough level is not collated centrally by the Ministry of Justice.

Court proceedings data for 2010 are planned for publication in the spring.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

Monday 21 March 2011

Big Society Bank

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

On 14 February, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I published a strategy to grow the social investment market, giving charities and social enterprises access to new capital to help them to increase their impact. The strategy explained the central role of the big society bank as a cornerstone of the market, acting as both a champion and wholesale provider of capital.

In February we also announced that we would work with leading social investment experts to develop a proposal for the establishment of the big society bank as an independent private sector organisation. Since then, we have been engaging with the social investment sector, and we are pleased with the ideas coming forward. Today I would like to update the House on the next steps.

As we announced in February, Sir Ronald Cohen, former chair of the social investment taskforce, and Nick O’Donohoe, former global head of research at JP Morgan, are taking the lead on developing a proposal for a big society bank. They are engaging with the sector, and we expect that they will present their proposal to Government within the next few weeks. At that point, we expect to make an in-principle decision about whether the organisation they are proposing to establish could be the recipient of unclaimed assets from dormant accounts, subject to further development work and state aid approval. If the decision is made to go ahead, detailed set up work for the big society bank would then be able to commence, including recruitment of its chair and board.

By making this statement today we want to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to feed in comments on the development of the proposal, or on our approach more generally. Separately, we are currently working to secure the state aid approvals from the European Commission that would be needed in order to capitalise an independent big society bank with money from dormant accounts and to provide it with the flexibility it needs to grow the market. We are also working with the big lottery fund on interim arrangements that will enable investments to be made as soon as dormant accounts money becomes available in the summer, using existing state aid exemptions. We will make further announcements in due course.

Armed Forces' Pay Review Body

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

The 2011 report of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body (AFPRB) has now been published. I wish to express my thanks to the chairman and members of the review body for their report. I am pleased to confirm that the AFPRB’s recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2011.

In line with the Government’s 2010 emergency Budget, which announced a two-year pay freeze for all public sector employees, the AFPRB basic military salary recommendations are only for those personnel earning £21,000 or less where the recommendation is for an increase of £250. The AFPRB also recommended a number of targeted measures, including the introduction of financial retention incentives to retain personnel essential to delivering key operational capability. The Government have also accepted the AFPRB recommendations to increase food and some accommodation charges.

Copies of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body report will be available in the Vote Office.

School Teachers' Review Body

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The School Teachers’ Review Body’s (STRB’s) recommendations on pay for those unqualified teachers who earn a full-time equivalent salary of £21,000 or less are being published today. The recommendations cover the first of two matters which were referred to the STRB in October 2010. I am grateful for the careful consideration which the STRB has given to this matter. Copies of the STRB’s analysis and recommendations are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses, and online at: http://www.education.gov.uk and http://www.ome.uk.com/.

The STRB has recommended that a non-consolidated payment of £250 should be made to those unqualified teachers who earn £21,000 or less; that the £250 is pro-rated for part-time unqualified teachers; and that consultation should seek to identify a simple and cost-effective method of payment.

I am grateful to the STRB for these recommendations which will apply to those unqualified teachers on scale points 1 to 3 and subject to consultees’ views, I intend to accept these recommendations.

My detailed response contains further information on these issues.

Annex

School Teachers’ Review Body’s (STRB’s) recommendations on pay for those unqualified teachers who earn a full-time equivalent salary of £21,000 or less and response from the Secretary of State for Education.

[The following sets out the STRB’s recommendations which were published on 21 March 2011, together with the response from the Secretary of State for Education. The STRB’s recommendations below are in italics.]

The Secretary of State for Education: The STRB’s analysis and recommendations on pay for those unqualified teachers who earn a full-time equivalent salary of £21,000 or less are being published today. The recommendations cover the first matter which was referred to the STRB in October 2010. Copies of the analysis and recommendations are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and in the Libraries of both Houses and online at: http://www.education.gov.uk and http://www.ome.uk.com/.

In making its recommendations, the STRB was required to have regard to items (a-e) set out in the remit letter of 27 October 2010. The recommendations apply to those unqualified teachers earning £21,000 or less in the context of the two-year public sector pay freeze that will affect teachers from September 2011; and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s instruction that there should be a minimum award of £250 in each of these two years. I am grateful for the careful attention the STRB has given to this matter.

The STRB is due to submit its 20th report, which will include the recommendations set out below as well as recommendations on whether there should be a limit on the value of discretions that can be applied to head teachers’ pay, by 30 March. I propose, therefore, that the statutory consultation on the STRB’s recommendations (below) should wait until the 20th report and my response to that report are published in due course. I will, however, accept comments in the meantime on the pay recommendations for unqualified teachers earning £21,000 or less.

Recommendations on pay for unqualified teachers earning £21,000 or less

The STRB has recommended that:

A non-consolidated payment of £250 be made in both years to all full-time teachers on spine points 1 to 3 of the unqualified teachers’ scale;

The £250 payment be pro-rated according to their working hours for part-time teachers on points 1 to 3 of the unqualified teachers’ scale;

The Department consult, with a view to identifying a simple and cost-effective method of payment, and issue guidance as appropriate.

I am grateful to the STRB for its consideration of this issue and, subject to consultees’ views, I intend to implement the payment from September 2011. I also intend, subject to consultees’ views, for the school’s relevant body to decide how the £250 payment should be implemented.

Energy Council

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

I will be attending the extraordinary Energy Council on 21 March, which has been called by the Hungarian presidency in order to take stock of the events in north Africa and Japan and to discuss their effect on energy markets. The Council will focus on two discussion points:

To review the state of play in the energy sectors of the countries linked to these international developments as well as their consequences on energy markets (e.g. supply from north Africa, evolution of demand in Japan);

To exchange views on the response, already underway or to be undertaken, at EU (e.g. crisis information and monitoring, various gas and oil co-ordination mechanisms) and member states’ level (e.g. national plans, redeployment of national supplies, review of safety measures), over various time horizons (from short-term to medium/long-term).

I intend to emphasise that member states and the Commission need carefully to establish what lessons can be learned from Japan to see how they can be applied in the EU. The Government take the incident in Japan extremely seriously and I have already called on the Chief Nuclear Inspector, Dr Mike Weightman, for a thorough report on the implications of the situation in Japan and the lessons to be learned. I will also emphasise that the EU should wait until the facts of the Japanese accident are clearer before taking any decisions about changes to the safety framework.

As regards the events in north Africa, we will continue to emphasise the importance of close engagement with other states in the IEA and the IEF to ensure that proper consideration is given to any measure that would calm the market.

International Criminal Court (Victims Fund)

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

The United Kingdom has made a donation of £500,000 to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Trust Fund for Victims.

The Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) was established by the states parties of the ICC in 2002 to benefit the victims of crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction. It is entirely funded by voluntary donations, and the British Government are now the second largest contributor to the fund. The focus of its work so far has been in northern Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where its project work provides assistance to the victims of the most serious crimes, including torture and sexual violence.

The ICC is now established as a cornerstone of the international justice system, and the recent referral to the Court by the United Nations Security Council of the situation in Libya was a clear example of the core role that the Court is now playing on the international stage. In all of its work, the ICC has placed a special focus on the rights and needs of victims. The TFV, anticipating that its mandate on reparations will be activated in the foreseeable future, will continue to play an increasingly important role in support of these victims, as they seek to re-establish their dignity and livelihood.

NHS Pay Review Body

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the 25th report of the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB). The report has been laid before Parliament today (Cm 8029). Copies of the report are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. I am grateful to the chair and members of the NHSPRB for their report.



We welcome the NHSPRB’s 25th report and accept its conclusions in full. We will take forward the suggested actions, which will help us continue to improve our support for the NHSPRB’s important work.

Prison Service Pay Review

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

The 10th report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) (Cm 8021) has been laid before Parliament today. The report makes recommendations for staff within the remit group who earn the full-time equivalent of £21,000 and below, and who are eligible for an increase in 2011-12 under the Government’s announced pay policy for public sector workforces. Copies of the report are available at: http://www.ome.uk.com/PSPRB_Annual_Reports.aspx. I am grateful to the chair and members of the PSPRB for their hard work in producing these recommendations.

The PSPRB key recommendations for 2011 are as follows:

a consolidated increase of £250 to all pay points at or below £21,000, including the first two points on the closed prison officer scale;

a requirement for the service and the POA to engage promptly in constructive dialogue with a view to agreeing the pay scales to apply for prison officer 2, prison officer 1 and the new operational support grade (OSG).

The PSPRB’s recommendations, which are consistent with our proposals for 2011-12, will be implemented. The cost of the award will be met from within the delegated budget allocation for the National Offender Management Service.

Review Body on Senior Salaries

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Since coming to power the Government have taken a number of steps to control public sector pay. At the first meeting of the Cabinet, Ministers announced that they would take a 5% pay cut—and that their pay would be frozen for the rest of the Parliament; vital savings have been achieved by freezing the pay of those earning over £21,000 and placing restrictions on bonuses for senior managers; transparency has been increased by publishing the salaries of senior Whitehall officials; and requirements for ministerial scrutiny of the highest public sector wages have been extended and strengthened.

In the civil service in particular significant savings have been made. Departmental spending envelopes set at the spending review mean that administration costs will fall by £5.899 million by 2014-15, a reduction of 34%. In addition, Departments have taken forward recruitment freezes which, alongside reforms to the civil service compensation scheme will deliver further savings over the spending review period.

It is in this context that the 33rd report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB) is being published today. The report covers the remuneration of the judiciary, senior civil servants, senior officers in the armed forces and certain senior NHS managers. Copies have been laid in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses. I thank the SSRB for their work in preparing this report.

The Judiciary

Given in particular the two-year pay freeze that will be in place for public servants earning over £21,000 from April 2011, the Government are not announcing any immediate changes to judicial salaries, but are considering the detail of the report overall and will respond at an appropriate time.

Senior Civil Service

The Government confirm that they will continue to work on reforms to the current SCS reward model that are consistent with the Government’s wider policy on restraint in public sector pay, and senior pay in particular, and the need to ensure that the civil service can continue to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient people of the necessary quality to fulfil the important roles undertaken by the SCS. The Government are grateful for the constructive engagement from the trade unions on SCS pay reform and will continue to consult and engage with them going forwards.

Senior Officers in the Armed Forces

The Government have accepted the review body’s recommendation that the Ministry of Defence review the performance management and pay system and consider whether improvements can be made.

Senior NHS Managers

The Government thank the review body for its work in this area and for continuing to monitor recruitment and retention over the pay freeze period.

Other Review Body reports for 2011-12

My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence, Justice, Education and Health are making statements today on the reports of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, the Prison Service Pay Body, the School Teachers Review Body, and the NHS Pay Review Body in respect of pay for the relevant workforces.

Drink and Drug-driving

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I have today placed in the Library of the House the Government’s response to a report by Sir Peter North on drink and drug-driving which was published in June 2010. This response also covers a report by the Transport Select Committee which was published in December 2010. The Government’s response is available on the Department’s website: www.dft.gov.uk.

The Government are committed to improving road safety. It is a priority to deter driving when unfit through drugs or alcohol, and to ensure that those who persist in this dangerous behaviour are detected and punished effectively. We must protect law-abiding road users with measures that are effective and proportionate, concentrating on those who are a danger to themselves and other road users, while avoiding unnecessary social and economic impacts.

We are convinced that our first priority must be to give the police the means to identify drug-drivers and compel them to give evidential samples for testing. It is just as dangerous for people to drive impaired by alcohol or drugs, and it is quite wrong that it is easier at present to get away with one than the other. There needs to be a clear message that drug-drivers are as likely to be caught and punished as drink-drivers and that drug-driving is as socially unacceptable as drink-driving.

We have taken the first steps to address this with a specification for drug testing equipment for the police. We aim to have this available for use later this year. We will—as Sir Peter suggested—examine the case for a new specific offence which would remove the need for the police to prove impairment on a case-by-case basis where a specified drug has been detected. The introduction of fixed thresholds for blood-alcohol as the test for drink-driving has delivered benefits to road safety that are clear for all to see.

Our strategy is to focus resources and any legislative changes on measures which will have the most impact in reducing dangerous behaviours. There are therefore two main priorities—

to continue the successful abatement of drink-driving and achieve similar success against drug-driving by giving the police effective tools to identify and proceed against drink and drug-drivers;

to streamline the enforcement process for drink and drug-driving to remove pressure on police and other enforcement resources.

A staggering proportion of drink-drivers are well over the current limit—40% of those caught by the police are 2.5 times the limit. The proportion of drivers over the limit who are killed is the same. Their behaviour is entrenched and displays a flagrant disregard for the law and the safety of other road users. We have concluded that improving enforcement is likely to have most impact on these dangerous people, and will therefore be the most effective use of scarce resources, rather than lowering the prescribed alcohol limit for driving.

We will implement the following measures, bringing forward legislation where necessary at the earliest opportunity—

revoke the right to opt for a blood test when the evidential breath test result is less than 40% over the limit (the “statutory option”) as this causes delay which results in some offenders avoiding prosecution;

streamline the procedure for testing drink-drivers in hospital;

close a loophole used by high risk offenders to delay their medical examinations;

require drink-drivers who are substantially in excess of the limit to take remedial training and a linked driving assessment—as well as a medical examination—before recovering their licence;

re-launch the drink-drive rehabilitation scheme under which drink-drivers can get the period of their driving disqualification reduced if they complete an approved training course;

approve portable evidential breath testing equipment for the police—and provide for preliminary testing not to be required where evidential testing can be undertaken away from the police station;

approve preliminary drug-testing equipment, initially for use in police stations—and at the roadside as soon as possible;

delegate to custody nurses the assessment police doctors are now required to make of suspected drug-drivers.

Full impact assessments, including among other things the potential impacts on enforcement and the judicial system, will be prepared in the usual way when legislation is brought forward.

Regional Cycling Projects

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

Today, I am announcing £836,000 of additional funding in this financial year to implement a number of small sustainable projects in the cycle towns and, separately, for three train operating companies to enhance their bike and rail schemes. This exceptional decision has been made possible due to prudent management of departmental expenditure, including additional efficiencies made this year.

The chosen cycle town projects—Blackpool, Bristol, Cambridge, Colchester, Darlington, Derby, Exeter, Leighton Linslade, South Gloucestershire, Southend, Shrewsbury Woking and York—have been assessed as capable of being delivered within the current financial year while offering value-for-money. I believe this additional funding will assist in meeting the overall aims of the project to get more people cycling safely. All the recommended projects fit well with the strategic objectives of the towns concerned and will increase the effectiveness of their existing programmes in generating additional cyclists.

The three train operating companies, Merseyrail, South West Trains and Northern Rail, have worked hard, in partnership with local authorities and other organisations, including Sustrans and Network Rail, to deliver high-quality infrastructure improvements accompanied by promotional activities. This is with the aim of encouraging more cycling to railway stations and to deliver improved integration of bike and rail journeys. This money will enable further enhancements to these schemes.

Today’s announcement complements, and is in addition to, our recently launched local sustainable transport fund which allows local authorities to bid for a share of £560 million over four years, aimed at encouraging sustainable transport solutions, including cycling initiatives, that will create economic growth and cut carbon.

This additional funding demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to cycling, recognising their potential contribution to reducing carbon emissions, improving health and creating economic growth.

Health and Safety System

Monday 21st March 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Government are committed to a health and safety regime that is fair, balanced and proportionate. Sensible health and safety at work helps to maintain a healthy and productive work force and contributes to economic prosperity. The burden of health and safety red tape has, however, become too great, with too many inspections of relatively low risk and good performing work places, frequently poor health and safety advice to businesses from badly qualified consultants, and a complex structure for regulation. To address these issues, the Government are today publishing their plans for the reform of the health and safety system.

We will clamp down on the rogue health and safety advisers who cost industry so much money by providing advice which often bears little relation to the actual requirements of legislation. To achieve this we have launched an official occupational safety and health consultants register for those health and safety practitioners who are properly accredited to one of the professional bodies in the industry. Those who do not have the requisite expertise and experience will be excluded from the register, making it easier for employers to access reliable, reputable advice. I am pleased to announce that the register will be open for the use of employers from today.

We will shift the focus of health and safety activity away from businesses that do the right thing, and instead concentrate efforts on higher risk areas and on dealing with serious breaches of health and safety regulation. Those organisations which pose a lesser risk and which meet their legal responsibilities will be left free of unwarranted scrutiny. This will mean a very substantial drop in the number of health and safety inspections carried out in Britain. We will also shift the cost burden of health and safety away from the taxpayer, and instead make those organisations that fail to meet their obligations pay to put things right.

We will seek to clarify and simplify health and safety legislation, and in doing so ease the burden on business. We are today launching new “Health and Safety Made Simple” guidance to provide lower-risk small and medium-sized businesses with the essential information they need to achieve a basic level of health and safety management in their work place in a single, easy-to-use, package. We are also launching an immediate review of health and safety regulation overseen by an independent advisory panel chaired by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt, director of the King’s centre for risk management at King’s college London. The review will be asked to make recommendations by autumn 2011 for simplifying the current rules. We will also ask the review to consider whether changes to legislation are needed to clarify the position of employers in cases where employees act in a grossly irresponsible manner.

Further details are available on the Department for Work and Pensions website at www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/health-and-safety. The latest progress on the implementation of the recommendations of Lord Young’s report “Common Sense, Common Safety” can be found on the same website.

House of Lords

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Monday, 21 March 2011.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Agriculture: Pigs

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked By

[Lord Hoyle]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what help they are giving to British pig farmers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)]

We are committed to supporting and developing all British farming. This includes working with the pig industry to build on progress by the pig meat task force to improve relationships between farmers and retailers. At an EU level, we are working to improve the situation for producers in the medium term, including discussions in the Commission’s new enlarged pig meat advisory group.

[Lord Hoyle]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that pig producers are losing £20 on every pig sold, that the industry as a whole is losing £3 million per week and that at the same time supermarkets are making £60 million a week and processors are making £8 million per week? When are the Government going to set up a grocery ombudsman whose job will be not only to protect consumers but to ensure that producers, such as British pig producers, get a fair price for their product?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising his Question. He is quite right to point to problems that the pig industry is facing as a result of the rise in the price of cereals and oil and the fact that our welfare standards, of which we ought to be very proud in this country, are a lot higher than elsewhere. As regards his principal question about the grocery code adjudicator, we have made it clear on a number of occasions in this House and in another place that we intend to bring forward legislation to create a grocery code adjudicator. We hope that we will be able to produce draft legislation later this year and take things further forward as we discuss that draft legislation.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am afraid it is the same old question, but it has to be because so little of our national law is now made in your largely redundant Lordships' House. The question is: to what extent are Her Majesty's Government in charge of aid to pig farmers and to what extent is it decided in Brussels?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord is, for once, right to say that it is the same old question. We have heard it from him a number of times in the past. If he is asking whether we should subsidise pig farmers, I have to say that this industry has largely been unsubsidised and that is how the Government and the pig world would like it to continue. If he is saying that there are concerns about the welfare standards being higher here than elsewhere, well, welfare standards are higher here than elsewhere. That is something the previous Government brought in earlier than the rest of Europe, but the rest of Europe will be catching up with our standards by January 2013, which we welcome. At that point, there will be a level playing field in terms of welfare standards.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, prior to foot and mouth disease in 2001, pig farmers were allowed to feed swill to their pigs. Is there any way in which Her Majesty's Government can reconsider the rules on swill feeding so that swill can be prepared centrally or regionally by approved swill cookers and then distributed to pigs? The cost of feeding pigs grain is tremendous and is frequently criticised.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Countess is right to point to that problem, which is why I highlighted the price increases in cereal. If the scientific evidence was such that pig swill could be made safe and reintroduced into the food chain, we would consider it. Obviously we will base any decision entirely on the scientific evidence put before us.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that a survey by the National Pig Association last month indicated that 77 per cent of producers have said that they will go out of production if the present situation continues? If that happened, there would be more imports of lower-welfare pork, some of which is produced in conditions that frankly would be illegal in this country. Will the Government consider bringing together producers, those who represent processors and the supermarkets to see whether we might together achieve a long-term sustainable supply chain agreement?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for highlighting the problems in the whole supply chain. We accept that it is in the retailers’ interest to ensure the long-term survival of British producers of pork, and we will do all that we can to achieve that. There is very little that the Government can do directly, but there are a large number of things that we can do indirectly, which is why I referred to the groceries code adjudicator and why I talk about government buying standards and a whole range of other matters. They are all small things, but they should all help.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, in response to my noble friend Lord Hoyle, the Minister talked about a draft Bill on the adjudicator later this year. However, given the urgency of and indeed the cross-party support for this, can we have an assurance that the adjudicator’s office will be up and running this year? Is that the Government’s aim?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows well, I cannot give the House that assurance. All I have said is that we will have a draft Bill this year, and we will take it from there.

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords, does the noble Lord still believe in the primacy of market forces?

[Noble Lords]

This side!

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, it was the turn of those on these Benches. I congratulate my noble friend on the usual high standard of his answers. Does his bloodline make him a kinsman of the late Earl of Emsworth?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, that is a very difficult one. I am very familiar with the works of PG Wodehouse. Whether I am related to Lord Emsworth is another matter.

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords, may I now ask whether the noble Lord, or rather his party, is still committed to the primacy of market forces?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, obviously market forces are very important, but there are other things that a Government can do. I made it clear earlier on that we do not believe that pig farming should be supported by subsidies. Nor does the pig farming world think that it should be supported by subsidies.

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has drawn attention once more to the urgency of the matter of the groceries adjudicator. The Government have the opportunity to insert a provision into the Public Bodies Bill. They refused to do that a week ago. Surely they should do so now; the Bill is still going through the House.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will raise this matter on Report on that Bill, but I think my explanation to him in Committee was that we think it better that these things are discussed in greater detail when we can find time for an appropriate Bill. That is why we are committed to a draft Bill.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the draft Bill to which he refers would be a far more welcome addition to the legislative timetable than another draft Bill that has recently been talked about?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I think that we are going beyond my pay grade and I will not discuss the differences between draft Bills.

HMS “Endurance”

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Tabled By

[Viscount Montgomery of Alamein]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to replace HMS “Endurance” as the Antarctic ice patrol vessel.

[Baroness Hooper]

My Lords, on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Lance Corporal Liam Tasker from the Royal Army Veterinary Corps and Lance Corporal Steven McKee from the 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, who were killed on operations in Afghanistan recently, and Private Daniel Prior from 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, who died of wounds sustained in Afghanistan. My thoughts are also with the wounded and I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude with which they face their rehabilitation.

I am pleased to confirm that a commercial ice-breaker, to be named HMS “Protector”, will provide the interim replacement ice patrol ship capability for at least the next three years while we consider the long-term future of HMS “Endurance”. We anticipate a contract for the ship’s lease and support being signed soon with the preferred bidder, GC Rieber Shipping. I will write to noble Lords who have an interest in this matter when the contract has been signed.

[Baroness Hooper]

My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his reply, perhaps I may say that I feel sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, will be greatly cheered to hear of this progress. He has, after all, been raising the issue regularly since the flooding accident suffered by HMS “Endurance” in the South Atlantic in 2008. Is my noble friend able to elaborate further about the past history of the new ice patrol ship to which he referred? Can he tell us why the name “Protector” has been selected?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the name “Protector” has a historic connection with Britain’s Antarctic commitment. It was the name of the ship which preceded the former “Endurance” in the Atlantic role. “Protector” was the sixth ship to bear the name and completed 13 Antarctic deployments from 1955 to 1968. A seventh ship of the name saw service as a Falkland Islands patrol vessel from 1983 to 1987. This is the eighth time that the name has been used. The intention is to lease MV “Polarbjorn”, a Norwegian ice patrol ship for an initial period of three years. She will arrive in Portsmouth in May where she will be fitted with specialist military equipment needed for her deployment. I have photographs of HMS “Protector”, which I can show to any noble Lord who is interested.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I should like to associate these Benches with the condolences offered to the family and friends of Lance Corporal Liam Tasker, Lance Corporal Steven McKee and Private Daniel Prior. I should also like to associate these Benches with the very thoughtful tribute that the Minister has paid to the wounded.

Such a satisfactory Answer raises serious problems when asking a further supplementary, but this has been a very sad affair. It is more than two years since “Endurance” was damaged beyond repair and it will not be replaced until May. I gather that in the mean time the task is being carried out by HMS “Scott”. Does the Minister agree that that is not satisfactory since “Scott” is not an ice-breaker, does not carry helicopters and is not armed?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words. As he said, HMS “Scott” is not an ice-breaker and she was only able to undertake operations in areas clear of significant ice risk. We have yet to determine whether the long-term solution for delivering the ice patrol ship capability will be better met through replacing or repairing HMS “Endurance”.

[Lord Naseby]

Having just returned from Chile, I should like to know whether my noble friend is aware that there is considerable tension in South America, particularly in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, which recently refused to give naval bunkering? The news that there is a new ship to take on station is welcome so far as it goes, but will he confirm that HMS “Protector” will be armed equivalently to her predecessor in order to fulfil the particularly important function of looking after the Falklands and South Georgia?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, the deployment of the new ice patrol ship is a separate issue from that of the security of the Falkland Islands. The permanent maritime presence in the Falklands is provided HMS “Clyde”, the Falkland Islands patrol vessel. The commander of British forces in the Falklands also has at his disposal either a frigate or a destroyer supported by a tanker.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I have to take issue with the Minister on this. The “Endurance” plays a key part and, indeed, 29 years ago today, almost, we had a bunch of scrap metal dealers going on to some of the Antarctic territories. Therefore to think of it as not part of a cohesive package for the region is wrong. I am glad that the ship is being replaced. It is important that it has the right facilities, and it makes sense to look at the options for the future; I have no difficulty with that. I suppose my final statement is that the Minister referred to HMS “Protector”, which was a net layer, as historic. Since I went on board that ship as a young officer, I find that rather difficult, but I understand the background.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support regarding HMS “Protector”. On the defence of the Falkland Islands, as the Secretary of State for Defence has said, the situation now is very far removed from that of the early 1980s. First, we maintain a far more robust and capable force in the Falklands to act as a deterrent and to secure our interests there, and that force is able to be reinforced as the need arises. Secondly, Argentina is no longer ruled by a military junta that is repressive at home and aggressive abroad, but of course we maintain robust contingency plans for times of crisis, and there is no questioning our resolve to defend the Falklands whenever required and from whatever quarter.

Somalia

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked By

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the political situation in Somalia.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the political situation in Somalia remains fragile and its instability presents increasing threats to the region and beyond. We continue to work with the Transitional Federal Government and our international and regional partners to take forward the UN-led Djibouti peace process. We, together with the United States and others, have made clear to the transitional federal institutions that there can be no extension of their mandate without reform to make them more legitimate and representative in the eyes of the Somali people.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, for the past two decades, Somalia has been a classic failed state, yet within its territory is the autonomous enclave of Somaliland, the old British protectorate. It is democratic, it co-operates with the international community as regards pirates, it seeks its own independence and international recognition, and wishes to be a member of the Commonwealth. Amid all the turbulence in the Arab world, surely now is the time for the Government to encourage African Commonwealth members to raise the matter in the African Union in the hope that there can be proper international recognition of what is a successful entity: the old British Somaliland.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to this issue, and I recognise the stability and achievements of Somaliland. Indeed, that recognition is reflected in the specific aid for Somaliland that has been given. When it comes to recognition as an independent state, while that is something that the Somaliland people have sought, it really is a question of getting their neighbours to lead the way. At the moment there is no recognition of Somaliland as a separate state by any country in the world. It may be that it is through the African Union that a change of heart should come, but our position is that this is a matter that has to be settled by the Somali people themselves and their neighbours rather than unilaterally by us.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, three months ago, the UN Security Council authorised an increase in the strength of AMISOM from 8,000 to 12,000. Will my noble friend say what progress has been made in meeting that objective? Will he also identify the substantial gains in the territory controlled by the TFG and AMISOM as announced in an AU communiqué of 17 March, if necessary by publishing a map?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I will look into the question of publishing a map, but, as far as progress in upgrading the strength of AMISOM is concerned, I am informed that the first 1,000 additional troops, provided by Burundi, were deployed early this month. The remaining troops are being provided by Uganda and are expected to deploy before the summer. As for the substantial gains, AMISOM carried out an offensive in Mogadishu from 19 February to 6 March, during which it was able to secure new ground, including vital areas around Bakara market. We are aware of other fighting between TFG-aligned militias and al-Shabaab elsewhere in the country, including in and around Bulo Hawo.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, have we not dangerously underestimated the reach and influence of al-Shabaab, not only in terrorising the people of Somalia but also in claiming responsibility for the deaths last year of 74 innocent people in Uganda? Should we not be doing more to highlight the depredations of al-Shabaab, which include the killing of Sufi and moderate Muslims, public executions, amputations, public flogging and stoning of women, the routine killing of journalists and the recruiting of child soldiers, some of whom have been responsible for some of the murders that I have mentioned? This has inevitably led to a large number of refugees leaving the country. What can the Minister tell us about the plight of those refugees, the human rights abuses and the export of al-Shabaab’s terror?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I can certainly confirm that, as the noble Lord said, al-Shabaab is a vicious and dangerous group which has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks in Somalia and the killing of soldiers, AMISOM troops, innocent civilians and parliamentarians, and which shows no regard for human life. The noble Lord asked what we could do. Her Majesty's Government have a Somalia strategy which they are pursuing. We are working with the AU, the EU and other allied forces and we are doing everything we can to establish a political strategy for the area. It is called a “dual-track” strategy, whose objective is to encourage both the transitional Government, provided that they commit to the right degree of reforms, and the bottom-up development of responsible and constructive groups who can oppose these very unpleasant people. They are a real danger, and the noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention to their vicious and unacceptable activities.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, may I press the Minister a little further on the question of reform? In his Answer, he said that there would be no extension of the transitional institutions’ mandate without reform to make them more legitimate in the eyes of their own people. What help is being given by DfID in this reform process and how is it being co-ordinated with help from the European Union?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I say in response to the second part of the noble Baroness’s question that we are supporting the European Union training mission, which trains up personnel and returns them to Mogadishu to assist policing and the upholding of law and order, such as it is in the area. We are working with it on a number of other programmes as well. As a result of the DfID review, the UK has agreed to provide up to £250 million—a very considerable amount indeed—in support of Somalia over the next four years, but we shall have a review of how that is going halfway through, in 2013. Our objective is to help support prosperity and tackle poverty across Somalia and to support efforts at peacebuilding and reconciliation at national, regional and, as I was saying a moment ago, at local level. It is the co-operation of the transitional Government and their commitment to this programme that are the conditions on which we base our support for them.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work being done by Missions to Seafarers Mombasa in providing counsel and support for seafarers who have been freed after having been hijacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia? Will he join me in affirming the wonderful work undertaken by Missions to Seafarers, not least through the promotion of an annual Sea Sunday, which this year, on 11 July, will highlight the problem of Somali piracy?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We are aware of this excellent work. It reminds us all of the much wider problem of piracy—which has been discussed in the House—which has been getting worse. The UK Government are taking the lead through the contact group and a variety of other co-operative links with the EU NAVOR Operation Atalanta, the Combined Maritime Task Force 151 and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2. A co-ordinated effort is coming together to meet the overall piracy issue, the basic roots of which, given the instability of Somalia, lie as much on land as they do on the high seas.

Disabled People: Employment

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:01

Asked By

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the decision of Remploy Ltd, the largest specialist employer of disabled people in the United Kingdom, to make redundancies among the workforce.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, voluntary redundancies are a matter for Remploy management and employees. Remploy will continue to examine how best to deliver its businesses within the existing five-year modernisation plan funding and will continue to fulfil its mission of transforming lives by providing sustainable employment opportunities for disabled and disadvantaged people.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I thank the Minister for that response. However, is he aware that I have received information from the unions that Remploy has been told by the Government to make 1,500 people redundant? They are very concerned about this because they fear that it may mean the closure of certain locations. As I said in my Question, Remploy is the largest specialist employer of disabled people in the country, working at 54 different locations. Surely it is in the interests of everyone, including the Government, to ensure that this facility is maintained because, in the light of the Government’s own policy, it is very important that disabled people should be able to work if they want to do so.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I can categorically reassure the noble Baroness that there is no such plan as has been suggested by the unions; we are looking at a voluntary redundancy plan. The next stage of what happens to Remploy will depend on the review that Liz Sayce is conducting into disability employment programmes, which is due to report in the summer.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I recognise that only voluntary redundancies are being sought at this stage, but does the Minister not agree that Remploy’s failure to meet its financial targets is, at least in part, attributable to the Government’s failure to meet their commitment to put work into the factories through procurement and otherwise? Can he assure the House that the Government will redouble their efforts to fulfil their side of the bargain contained in the five-year funding agreement of 2007?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the Remploy business plan was designed by Remploy management. It has failed to achieve its targets because, in retrospect, it was wildly overambitious to expect that public procurement could go up by 130 per cent. The cost of subsidising a disabled person in a Remploy job has now reached £23,000 a year, compared with the success of Remploy employment services in putting a person into an independent job for a one-off cost of £3,400.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, will my noble friend expand on the work of Remploy employment services? Getting people with disabilities into jobs in the mainstream is surely the way forward. What guarantee is there of support for such schemes, which are in line with what most of us have been working towards for a long time.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords, the success of Remploy’s employment services is little less than extraordinary. It has now put some 24,000 people into jobs. In 2009-10 there were more than 10,000 people. It looks to get about 18,000 people into jobs this year and its target for 2012-13 is 30,000.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Hollis!

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, the House was calling for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Thank you, my Lords, I am grateful. We all agree, following the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the best strategy for work for disabled people is to see them coming into mainstream jobs. Anything that can be done in this respect by the current Government, as was done by the previous one, is greatly to be welcomed. Yet, frankly, that strategy only works when there is low unemployment. At the moment, in my county of Norfolk where 32,000 people are chasing 4,000 jobs, I suspect that the opportunities for disabled people will shrink unless Remploy can ensure supportive employment. Could the Minister not at least work with Remploy to ensure that there are continuing opportunities for disabled people until we see the employment market open up again?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, my last answer made clear the extraordinary success of Remploy in getting people with disabilities into jobs. That does not seem to have been affected by a very difficult employment market. I remind the House of the relative costs: the factory business of Remploy takes between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of the total that we as a country spend on disability employment programmes to support some 3,000 people.

[Lord Davies of Coity]

My Lords, while recognising that the policy of the coalition Government is to have voluntary separation and voluntary redundancy, does the Minister agree with me that even on a voluntary basis the number of job opportunities will be reduced for disabled people in the future?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I hope that I have made absolutely clear the exact opposite. The employment services strategy is working. Numbers are going up. It is looking to help 30,000 people per year by 2012-13 into mainstream jobs. A company such as ASDA has already taken on 1,000 disabled people. With this strategy we are delivering something that disabled lobbies and people want—to be in full, mainstream employment.

Wreck Removal Convention Bill

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:08

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Pensions Bill [HL]

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:08

Moved By

[Lord Freud]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3, Schedule 3, Clauses 4 to 18, Schedule 4, Clauses 19 to 25, Schedule 5, Clauses 26 to 30.

Motion agreed.

Marine Licensing (Licence Application Appeals) Regulations 2011

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Marine Licensing (Notices Appeals) Regulations 2011

Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011

Motions to Approve

15:08

Moved By

[Lord Henley]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7 and 8 February be approved.

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 March.

Motions agreed.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:09

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the Leader of the House will shortly repeat a Statement about Libya. The usual channels have agreed that the time for Back-Bench questions and answers today should be extended from 20 minutes to 40 minutes.

Libya

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:09

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now make a Statement about Libya in order to bring the House up to date, in light of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, the Prime Minister’s Statement to the other place of Friday 18 March and events that have taken place over the weekend.

It is now almost a month since the people of Libya first took to the streets to make clear their wish for a regime that is free of oppression and corruption. Since those initial protests, we have seen the situation deteriorate and the violence increase. In response to the need to protect vulnerable citizens, the UK has played a leading role in delivering EU action and UNSC resolutions.

On 23 February, the UN Secretary-General described the reported nature and scale of attacks on civilians as,

“egregious violations of international and human rights law”,

and called on the Government of Libya to,

“meet its responsibility to protect its people”.

He said later that more than 1,000 people had been killed and many more had been injured in Libya amid credible and consistent reports of arrests, detention and torture.

At the end of February, and at Britain’s instigation, the UN Security Council agreed Resolution 1970 to bring in asset freezes and a travel ban for Gaddafi’s top officials. Accordingly, the Foreign Secretary removed the exemption from UK immigration control that applied previously to Gaddafi, as head of state, and members of his household, thus preventing them from entering the UK. The Government also took action to freeze the assets of Gaddafi, members of his family, people acting on their behalf, and entities owned or controlled by them. We have prohibited the export of uncirculated Libyan banknotes without a licence from the UK.

The EU Council decision and regulation, adopted on 3 March, extended the scope of the travel ban and asset freeze to include additional individuals subject to EU measures. On 11 March, the European Council issued a declaration on developments in Libya, in which EU leaders called on Gaddafi to “relinquish power immediately”, as his regime had “lost all legitimacy”, and agreed to work with the UN, the Arab League, the African Union and international partners in responding to the crisis.

There has also been a clear desire by the international community to see Gaddafi’s regime held to account for its actions. On 1 March, Libya was suspended from the UN Human Rights Council. The UK was also instrumental in referring Gaddafi and his regime to the International Criminal Court, which opened its investigation on 3 March. Despite repeated calls to end their violence and, as the UN Secretary-General put it, for the Government of Libya to,

“meet its responsibility to protect its people”,

we saw only an escalation of state violence and an ever growing number of civilian casualties. We therefore supported the UN in a call for an immediate ceasefire and, if one were not forthcoming, for action to protect the civilian population.

A no-fly zone was authorised by UN Resolution 1973 on 17 March 2011. The resolution also called for an immediate ceasefire, an end to the violence, measures to make it more difficult to bring mercenaries into Libya and the tightening of sanctions. It also authorised the use of all necessary measures to protect the civilian population, including in Benghazi. Unfortunately, the Gaddafi regime did not heed this resolution and continued, and indeed stepped up, brutal military action against its own citizens over the following days, while pretending in public to be implementing a ceasefire. Therefore, on 19 March, a summit for support for the Libyan people was convened in Paris by President Sarkozy. It was attended by France, the UK, the USA, Spain, Germany, Canada, Qatar, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Greece, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, the League of Arab States, Iraq, the UAE, Jordan and Morocco, as well as the UN and EU. Leaders agreed to,

“act collectively and resolutely to give effect”,

to UNSCR 1973 and called on Gaddafi and his forces to,

“immediately end all acts of violence carried out against civilians, to withdraw from all areas they have entered by force, return to their compounds and allow full humanitarian access”.

Following that, on the evening of 19 March, UK Armed Forces under the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 participated in a co-ordinated strike against Libyan air defence systems. The UK launched guided Tomahawk land-attack missiles from a Trafalgar class submarine. The RAF also launched Storm Shadow missiles from a number of Tornado GR4 fast jets, which flew direct from RAF Marham as part of a co-ordinated coalition plan to begin the international community’s enforcement of the Security Council resolution. HMS “Westminster” is currently off the coast of Libya and HMS “Cumberland” is in the region, ready to support operations.

Gaddafi made a television statement late on 19 March, in which he criticised military action and asked the Security Council and the international community for an “immediate” stop to the hostilities. Gaddafi claimed:

“Libya will be practising its right of self-defence according to clause 51 of the UN Charter”,

and threatened that,

“civilian and military targets in the air and sea will be liable to serious danger in the Mediterranean”.

UK and partner forces remain engaged in ongoing operations as we seek to ensure that Colonel Gaddafi and his forces understand that the international community will not stand by and watch them continue to kill civilians.

I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in expressing pride in our Armed Forces and admiration for the bravery and expertise of our service men and women as they complete their difficult work. We also pay tribute to the continuing work of British officials both at home and abroad as they, too, complete their tasks.

I want to make it clear that these are efforts to protect the Libyan population as called for by many Libyans throughout the country including the Libyan opposition, with whom we are in regular contact. The Libyan population wants freedom from oppression and to be able to choose its leaders. As the Prime Minister has said,

“what we are doing is necessary, it is legal, and it is right. It is necessary because, with others, we should be trying to prevent him”—

Gaddafi—

“using his military against his own people. It is legal, because we have the backing of the United Nations Security Council and also of the Arab League and many others. And it is right because we believe we should not stand aside while this dictator murders his own people”.

I will ensure that the Government keep the House updated as the situation develops.

15:18

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the Statement that he has just given on Libya. Noble Lords will be aware that MPs in another place are debating and voting today on the UK’s involvement in military action by the United Nations-led coalition in Libya. Our role in this House is not that today, but this is a serious and important matter and it is right that this House should consider these matters today as well.

First, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about members of the UK’s Armed Forces who are engaged in that military action. We are and should be proud of what they do and of their ability, expertise and bravery. We share the concern of the families of service personnel at times of such action.

At a time of military engagement, it is particularly important to be clear about what is being done and what the strategy is, and about purpose and support. The Prime Minister said last week in relation to Libya and to the military action being taken by the UK and by UK forces that,

“what we are doing is necessary, it is legal, and it is right”.

We on these Benches agree with that. We support what the United Nations is doing, what Britain is doing with its allies in the coalition and what the Government here are doing in relation to Libya.

However, in addition to giving support, it is our job as an Opposition to maintain scrutiny and to hold the Government to account. That is what we must and will do. Strong support and rigorous scrutiny through this House are our clear job and responsibility as an Opposition, so, as I said, that is what we will do. We can all see from our television screens and other sources that the position on the ground in Libya and in the air above it is fast moving. It is in the nature of military action, especially in modern military engagement, that that is the case. The job of politicians in these circumstances is not to second-guess the military commanders—they are doing their job, on behalf of us all—but it is right that we should consider the broader position and the context for that military action. That is the job for both Houses of our Parliament today.

In relation to Libya and the current military action, I ask the Leader of the House about four principal areas: the action that Colonel Gaddafi is taking against his own people; our response to that action; our strategy for that response; and the position at and after the cessation of military activity.

In all this, the shadow of Iraq looms large. Iraq and the UK’s part in the military activity there were controversial at the time and remain controversial now. Inevitably, what happened in Iraq is bound to lead to hard questions about the wisdom, practicality and consequences of intervention, including this intervention in Libya. However, as my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary put it today,

“while Iraq should inform us, it should not paralyse us”.

That is right.

When Colonel Gaddafi announced that, in relation to 700,000 of his own countrymen and countrywomen in Libya who had sought freedom, as so many have done this spring across the Middle East, there would be “no mercy and no pity”, we have a clear responsibility to act. When Libyan government officials declare that there will be house-to-house revenge, we have a clear responsibility to act. When at least 1,000, probably many more, of Libya’s own people have been killed by the Gaddafi regime, according to the UN, we have a clear responsibility to act. Action over Libya was and is necessary precisely because of Gaddafi’s explicit actions—because of what he has done and what he proposed to do.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that action in these circumstances is action to protect the Libyan people? We should not forget that a responsibility to protect was agreed by the Security Council in the United Nations General Assembly following the atrocities in Kosovo and Rwanda, when the world community failed to protect. The United Nations Security Council resolution allows all necessary measures to maintain and restore international peace and security under Chapter 7 of the UN charter. Will the noble Lord confirm that regime change is not an objective, that the proper focus will be the protection of the Libyan people, that measures have to be measured and proportionate and that Gaddafi is not a target unless he becomes or acts as part of the command and staff of any particular action?

It is important that the Government as a whole speak with one voice on this issue. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that, although the comments made by the Secretary of State for Defence were perhaps unfortunate, they should not be taken as indicating that the Government have any intention of acting outside the confines of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

I pay tribute to the former Leader of your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, who in her role as the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs was, I know, closely involved in important discussions with the Council of Ministers, the Arab League and the G8. The noble Baroness sometimes gets a rough ride in the media. She is tough enough to take it, but she deserves credit, too, for what she does and what she is able to do in difficult circumstances such as these.

The important decision of the Arab League to support a no-fly zone for Libya and the decision of the United Nations Security Council in passing Resolution 1973 show clearly the strength of feeling and the strength of purpose in the international community. We all recognise that without that decision by the league there would have been no United Nations Security Council resolution.

Will the Leader of the House set out the form of the current coalition—the number of countries involved and the number that are likely to be involved? Britain, France and the United States have so far taken the lead. The US has made it clear that it does not wish to remain as the principal agent in the coalition, although it will strongly and forcefully both support it and play its own full part in it. Who will act as the principal agent in the coalition? Will that be a job for NATO? How will the coalition be organised in terms of relations with the members of the coalition? Will that be done by continuing international summits, such as the one convened in Paris last Friday that the noble Lord mentioned?

Could the Leader explain to the House what the UK Government judge to be the meaning of the phrase used in the United Nations resolution that “all necessary” force is now authorised to prevent the slaughter of the civilian population in Libya? Does that, in the Government’s view, include, as necessary and appropriate at some point in the future, the use of ground troops in addition to the airborne forces that we are currently deploying? In the coalition’s strategy, will the Leader confirm that there is no intent for coalition forces to be or to become an army of occupation? Could he say what will constitute success in Libya? Is the creation of a stalemate between the regime and those against it a legitimate objective for the coalition? How far have the UK, the UN or the coalition considered the issue of partition, and what might that mean in practice for those taking part in the coalition? What will constitute the end game?

In Iraq, much attention was focused on the legitimacy of the military conflict, but much attention was also concentrated on accusations that, in taking military action, insufficient attention was paid to what would happen when that military action was, in the main, over. What happens subsequent to the military action is of course dependent on the outcome of that action. Libya and the Libyan people will and must be dominant in that. However, the Arab League, the African Union and the coalition will also be important. No one would expect that, at the very moment that military action is taking place, equal attention could or should be given to what happens after the shooting stops. Equally, one of the ways in which Iraq should inform us is that, however difficult it is, attention must be given to what happens afterwards. If the humanitarian need to act is pressing now, a different kind of humanitarian aid will be pressing after the military action.

Britain is in a better position to consider these issues because of our values as a nation, a democracy and a country where both the rule of law and human rights are paramount. Humanitarian requirements are strong. Multilateralism is the best way to respond to them. That is why we support the United Nations overall and, specifically, in relation to Libya.

Can the Leader of the House give a commitment that this House will have the earliest possible opportunity to debate these issues in full in a day-long debate? Can business perhaps be so arranged that such a debate could take place this week or next week at the latest—maybe even on Friday 1 April? I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that he will keep us informed about Libya and the military action. I presume that the noble Lord means that he will do so through Statements and, perhaps, in briefings on a variety of bases for Members of this House.

Throughout the Middle East, the world is turning on its axis. The changes in some countries have been enacted differently. There has been violence in Bahrain, for example, and Yemen. There was certainly bloodshed in Egypt. The removal of President Mubarak was not carried out without blood being spilt. However, overall, Egypt managed to change without the kind of large-scale violence, murder and war crime that we have seen and are seeing in Libya. Change is possible without what is tantamount in Libya to civil war. However, Libya is different; it is a special case. In Libya, the leader of the country is making large-scale threats against his own people. He is enacting those threats by attacking and killing his own people on a massive scale. That demands a response—a proportionate and just response, but a clear response of the kind that the United Nations is giving. We support the Government in that response. We will maintain our responsibility to scrutinise what the Government are doing but, in seeking to protect the people of Libya, the Government, the coalition and the UK Armed Forces fighting there now, today, in our names, have our support.

15:29

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I begin with what the noble Baroness said in her closing remarks. We are witnessing, right across the Middle East, a great period of change. We are witnessing events sometimes changing very quickly on our television screens, dealing with frustrations that have built up over a long period. In each country these are manifested in different ways and may well end in different destinations. It is difficult for us to see exactly what those will be. Our role is to encourage the aspirations of individual countries’ peoples to be met and to enable change, where it happens, to be as peaceful as possible and provide for the long-term sustainability of individual nations.

I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and the way in which she expressed it. I thank her particularly for supporting the action that the Government have taken. She is completely right: this House should debate these great issues. The House was not sitting on Friday when the Statement was taken in another place and the usual channels deemed it too short notice to provide for a debate at the same time as the debate in another place. Through the usual channels we will continue to provide time for short debates and Statements, as they arise. If there is a need for a wider debate—I suspect that there will be—we will make time available for that and let the House know. Like the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition, I think that we should do that relatively soon—perhaps towards the end of next week.

The noble Baroness said that we needed to be clear about the purpose of this action and that there should be clear parliamentary scrutiny. I entirely agree with her. The purpose of this House is not only to inform another place but to inform the Government of the views of this House.

What has Colonel Gaddafi been doing and how has he breached Security Council Resolution 1973? Since Saturday evening, it is clear to us that Colonel Gaddafi’s forces launched an attack on Benghazi, shelling residential suburbs. There have been air strikes by the US, the UK and France to enforce the no-fly zone. I can announce to the House today that coalition forces have largely neutralised Libyan air defences and that, as a result, a no-fly zone has effectively been put in place over Libya. However, Colonel Gaddafi’s forces launched artillery and tank bombardments against Misurata over the weekend of 19 to 20 March, causing dozens of injuries and damage to electricity and water supplies. Under these circumstances, we are utterly clear about the legal basis for military action and the fact that the UN Security Council resolution has been comprehensively broken. Our strategy is, therefore, to enforce that resolution.

This action is being taken primarily to protect the civilian population in Libya. Regime change is no part of our objective, although we have made it clear, through the Prime Minister and as a Government, that we believe that Colonel Gaddafi no longer has the support and confidence of his people. I can also confirm that Colonel Gaddafi is not a target, as the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Richards, told the BBC. He said:

“It’s not allowed under the UN resolution”.

I believe that that is entirely in accordance with all that the Secretary of State for Defence has said.

I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said about the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who has performed a difficult task under difficult circumstances. I know that she has the wholehearted support of this House.

The question is raised: who is running this military operation and what is NATO’s role? In other words, who is in charge? The operation is currently under US command, with high-profile French and UK involvement as well as close co-ordination with a range of other countries, including Arab states. We continue to discuss with partners the arrangements for the next phase of this military operation. Over the short term, we want a transition to NATO command of military operations as quickly as is feasible. That is also Turkey’s aim. We are working hard to get decisions in NATO to enable this to happen as fast as possible.

The noble Baroness asked a series of questions, some of which are hypothetical. For instance, she asked what happens next. It is very difficult to picture exactly what the next course of action will be, but we know that it will be a difficult and dangerous road ahead. We cannot determine the exact course of events. However, we are clear that already we have saved civilian lives from the violence of their own regime. We have prevented the fall of Benghazi, which is a substantial city of more than 1 million residents, and we believe that Libyan people have a better chance of determining their own destiny than before.

We are clear about the meaning of the Security Council resolution: “all necessary” force in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians means exactly that, but it does not mean that we can put military forces on the ground. We do not believe that that is allowable under the Security Council resolution.

I have said that we will have an opportunity to debate this. I will continue to update the House, as will my colleagues. The noble Baroness also made an interesting suggestion that we as a Government might be able to offer briefings to interested Peers. I would very much like to offer that. My noble friends Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Astor of Hever will make time for interested Peers to be kept abreast of events as they unfold. Through the usual channels, we will find a way of bringing that to the attention of the House.

15:37

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for the way that the Government have acted by putting down that resolution at the Security Council at the key moment? Will the Government give some consideration to getting the Security Council to authorise putting Libya’s oil resources into an escrow account and making a proportion of that account roughly proportionate to the size of the part of Libya that is under the control of the insurgents available to them for civil purposes? That, as the noble Lord will remember, was what happened in Iraq in 1991. It successfully supported the survival of the Kurdish part of Iraq, without in any way altering our respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of that country. That would be a way in which the insurgents could be helped. When dealing with some Governments around the world who have expressed doubts or even criticism of what we have done, will the Minister remind them that every single one of them subscribed in 2005 to the doctrine of the responsibility to protect? Will he ask them fairly robustly what they would do now to protect the civilians of Libya?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have noted previously that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, brings his considerable experience and knowledge to bear in this House. It is immensely useful that he does so at this time. I very much welcome his words about the United Kingdom and France putting down the key resolution, and doing so at the right time—some would say in the nick of time. Certainly, if it had happened 24 hours later, we might have faced a very different situation in Libya.

The noble Lord makes an interesting suggestion—one that is based on precedent—about the oil resources and an escrow account. All these matters are under consideration in the United Nations and, of course, in the Security Council and in individual member states. As the noble Lord points out, such a measure would respect the integrity of international borders.

On the criticism of some countries, the words of the noble Lord stand. They will be read and should be repeated to those countries that have sat by while so many others have done the work. In due course, the world will re-evaluate those who stood by and would have let a cataclysm occur in Benghazi.

[Lord St John of Fawsley]

My Lords, on behalf of all Back-Benchers in the House, perhaps I may express admiration for our gallant troops of both sexes in the war. It is not necessary for everybody to take up valuable time with that statement, so perhaps I may take it on myself to express it. Secondly, will the Minister use his influence to persuade the Prime Minister, who is universally and rightly recognised as a master of diplomacy, to use that gift to persuade as many Arab states as possible to come out openly in favour of this international coalition? What the Prime Minister has achieved permanently—I hope that the Minister will agree—is to make international affairs part of the national interest. Perhaps he or another senior Minister will write to Mr Tony Blair and quote the words of a great Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, who wrote to Harold Laski, then chairman of the Labour Party:

“A period of silence from you would be most welcome”.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I join my noble friend, as I know the House does, in paying tribute to our troops who have reacted immensely quickly to the challenges put upon them and who even now are in action or redeploying—particularly the RAF—to a new forward base in southern Italy. My noble friend encouraged me to use my influence with the Prime Minister to urge him to encourage Arab states to stay on board. The Prime Minister needs absolutely no encouragement from me. He is actively involved in this work and is speaking by telephone to members of the Arab League continually. There were stories yesterday in the news that the Arab League was withdrawing its support because of civilian casualties. I can confirm that that is not the case. The Secretary-General, Amr Moussa, said:

“It is for the Security Council to take decisions as it sees fit. What we did in the Arab League is make an official request to impose a no-fly zone on military activities against the Libyan people”.

In creating these alliances and coalitions, a lot of people need to be brought together. This needs continual diplomatic work and the Prime Minister is at the forefront of that.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, perhaps I may carry on that theme by suggesting to the Leader of the House that it is not a question just of the Arab League giving diplomatic support. Will he assure the House that we will ensure that the Arab League takes part militarily in the operation—the more members, the better—and that if it does not, and if we find that Arab support evaporates, we will think very hard about extricating ourselves from this military action?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Qatar is sending military assistance. We anticipate further assistance from other Arab League members, although we are currently not in a position to say what form this will take. Arab partners made it clear that if the action was authorised by a Security Council resolution, they would contribute military assets. We are continuing to discuss this with them and to lobby our partners to contribute to a coalition force from both NATO and the wider international community.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, we on this side support the credible and convincing case made by the Prime Minister in the other place. The legality of the action is not in question, because the systematic slaughter and violation of international and human rights law by Gaddafi against his own population demand action. The protection of civilians must be the top priority as the collateral damage would be exploited by Gaddafi. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord three pertinent questions. The first concerns his statement about Amr Moussa’s interpretation of Resolution 1973. Are we absolutely sure that at this stage he understands our position? Is he able to help us, as Qatar is doing, in terms of military action against Gaddafi? Secondly, the role of the African Union should not be underestimated, particularly when mercenaries from some African countries are being used by Gaddafi. We still have to face the question of the large number of refugees who are now on the borders of Libya. Thirdly, the exit strategy must be clearly stated. Irrespective of the fate of the Libyan dictator, the solution must remain a matter for the Libyan people.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his opening remark that the legality is not in question. He is right in that. We have received the clearest possible advice on the legal basis. The Security Council resolution is extremely clear without any ambiguity and the breaking of that resolution is equally clear. I also agree with my noble friend that the most vital aspect of the work taking place under the auspices of that Security Council resolution is the protection of civilians in Libya. Within that, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord West, the support of the Arab League and the African Union is also extremely important. Diplomatic efforts are being vigorously carried out across the world. Finally, my noble friend asked about the exit strategy. We have made it very clear for a long time that we believe that Colonel Gaddafi has lost the support and confidence of his people. However, in the first place, we wish to see peace and for the people of Benghazi to be able to go about their lives in a peaceful manner. We will review the situation from time to time and will see how events unfold in the days and weeks ahead.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, this episode, if I may call it that, which has given rise to discussion today, is characteristic of the unpredictability of foreign affairs and it indicates the way in which something very alarming has to be addressed urgently. I hope that the House will join me in welcoming the caution, comprehensiveness, clarity and courage with which this problem has been addressed, as well as our satisfaction that there is anything but complacency about it. We shall need to be careful and watchful. However, we can express great confidence in the decisions taken so far and extend our strongest support for the continuation of this approach to the problem.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I very much welcome what my noble and learned friend has said with all his experience and knowledge not just as a former Foreign Secretary but as someone who has witnessed many different international crises and events over a long period. I assure him that there is no complacency and I know that he understands that. I very much welcome his continued support and encouragement. I hope that he will avail himself of any briefing that we can offer so as to keep himself entirely up to speed.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, it is immensely reassuring that the Government are showing determination that our courageous service men and women should operate within the context of international law and under the authority of the Security Council. I am sure that there is widespread support for that determination on the part of the Government. However, does the noble Lord agree that, ultimately, the long-term stability of Libya and of other Arab countries is dependent on the people being in control of their own destiny? It is their struggle and they have to find the solutions; and whether or not there should be regime change is in their hands. Is it not, therefore, essential for us to avoid at all costs being directly or indirectly seduced into what could be seen as political manipulation of the situation? Can the noble Lord also say a word about the predicament of the large number of refugees, many of whom are, in effect, stateless?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I welcome what the noble Lord has said about us operating within the context of international law and with the full support of a UN Security Council resolution. The noble Lord is also entirely correct in talking about long-term stability being in the hands of the Libyan people. If the western powers—perhaps I can put it as loosely as that—were seen to be imposing some kind of solution on Libya, it would not work. I totally agree with what the noble Lord said: the future of Libya must lie in the hands of its people and they must decide how best to run their affairs. That is part of what all this is about: by protecting civilians, we give the people the ability to have a choice to aspire to change, as has happened more peacefully in other parts of the Middle East.

The noble Lord also asked about humanitarian aid for those who find themselves stateless. I suspect that that could easily become a growing problem but DfID has played a key role and has already provided tens of thousands of blankets, more than 1,400 family tents and charter planes which have returned more than 6,000 people to their countries. The number of arrivals in transit camps is now falling; as of 20 March, some 5,874 people remain at the transit camp and DfID, with many other partners, is continuing to work to reduce the number.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if Gaddafi were to disappear from the scene tomorrow, he would leave behind him a non-functional community, and no continued imposition of a no-fly zone would of itself give any real protection at all to that community? In the circumstances, does he agree that the temptation may be very great for land forces to be used to bring about that very result? Will he endorse something that I think he has already touched on, in so far as Her Majesty's Government’s interpretation of the relevant resolution is concerned—after all it is a political and not a judicial decision—that he would abjure completely the possibility of land troops being used?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, however desirable it would be for Colonel Gaddafi to disappear tomorrow, I can confirm that this country will not be tempted to use land forces to bring that about.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, perhaps I can invite the Minister to clarify that point which might be open to misunderstanding. Although it is true that the UN Security Council resolution forbids or does not cover any invasion or occupation, there is nothing in that resolution which would inhibit us using military assets to do something like rescue a downed pilot.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords, I regard that as a very different point and I am able to clarify that to my noble friend.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, the House has heard an admirably clear account of how we got here. I was not as convinced by the way in which the noble Lord brushed aside the question of where we go next. I agree that it is hard to predict the future, but it is good to know where you want to go; that is called having war aims. It seems to me that, as of today, the analogy is with the first Iraq war when we had, as now, a very clear legal base in a Security Council resolution—new and specific—and we had widespread support in the region and in the Muslim world generally. I believe that that is the case now; I hope that it is. We also had very clear war aims. We were going to restore the independence of Kuwait. Therefore, the exit strategy was absolutely clear.

This time, it is so important to retain the support of the Muslim world and the Middle East that it is crucial that the Prime Minister, who moved with admirable speed last week, should move no less fast this week to agree war aims with the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, across the Government, with Paris and Washington and our other NATO partners and across the Middle East, so that we are clear where it is we want to go. I hope that the noble Lord will pass that message on.

[Lord Strathclyde]

That is a good point well made. The comparison with the clarity of the Gulf War involving Kuwait is a good one, but the timing was so different. We were faced last week with the possible annihilation of opposition forces in Benghazi. I accept the noble Lord’s implied criticism, which I know is meant in a constructive and friendly way, that clear objectives are harder to define. I hasten to add that I hope that I did not brush over that too much. The fact that we have saved civilian lives from the violence of their own regime already is a success and an objective. Enforcing the no-fly zone by damaging Libyan anti-aircraft assets is already a significant change. That means that coalition forces can fly over Libya to enforce the no-fly zone. We believe that that will lead to the Libyan people having a better chance of determining their own destiny than before.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords—

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

There is another 20 minutes to go. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne was on his feet before.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord McNally]

Noble Lords are behaving worse with 40 minutes than they did when they had 20 minutes.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. As someone who has been involved in Anglo-Libyan commercial relations for the past five or six years, I have, needless to say, received with the greatest distress what has been happening in Libya in recent weeks: the wholesale slaughter of civilians and the wounding of a great many more. I am bound to say, therefore, that I very much agree with the action that the Government took first at the United Nations and then in joining the military operations of recent days.

However, we have to be careful about the objectives that we are seeking, both military and political. The military objectives are surely simply to pave the way towards the political objectives; and the political objective seems clear, which is to provide for the people of Libya an opportunity to choose for themselves in a free and fair way who should be their leaders.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I acknowledge my noble friend’s great understanding of Anglo-Libyan relations. I thank him for his support of the actions of Her Majesty's Government. I particularly agree with the clarity with which he put the objective, which is to provide for the people of Libya to choose their own future and political destiny.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

The noble Lord said that the primary objective is the protection of civilians. Surely under the terms of the UN Security Council resolution, that is the only objective, however tempted one might be to go further along that road and intervene in a civil war on one side or the other. The noble Lord has heard the concern about the position of the Arab League: unless and until it goes beyond words to action, there will be strains within the coalition. I hope that, with the Government, he will seek to impress on the Arab League that more is expected of it than just brave words and that it should be with us all the way.

Will the noble Lord say a little about the position of countries, perhaps in the Arab League, seeking to provide arms to the rebels? Does the UN arms embargo apply to both sides or would it be legitimate under international law for countries to provide arms to the rebels?

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made it clear that there is very limited civil society in Libya. The European Union is experienced in providing and buttressing civil society and in providing aid, but clearly Arab nations will have to take the lead. Can the Minister give an assurance that we in the European Union are urgently looking at means of providing aid on political, economic and social infrastructure to help Libya look to a brighter future?

16:00

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises useful and interesting questions. Under the Security Council resolution, there are two clear objectives. The first is to protect civilians and the second is to enforce the no-fly zone. They are enormously interrelated, but we believe that protecting civilians is a key objective. We have already discussed the wider coalition, the alliance across different nations and groups, including the Arab League. The Arab League has confirmed that it would be willing to offer military support, and I am sure that some members of it will do so.

The arms embargo is for the nation of Libya as a whole. Therefore, any arms shipped to the opposition or to rebel groups would be illegal under the Security Council resolution. On the EU role post conflict, I, too, believe that the EU has a substantial role to play. No doubt there are those within the EU working on how that might work in practice. It could only work with co-operation. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who talked about working in co-operation with the Muslim world. I agree with both noble Lords on that point.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, does the Leader of the House share my concern that in an increasingly volatile region there are already those who for their own ends are using somewhat inflammatory language and trying to construct a religious narrative around these unfolding events? In this account, a vulnerable Islamic population is being subjected to an opportunistic attack by a powerful Christian West. Not only does such a narrative have the power to destabilise the wider Middle East region, but it could impact very negatively on community relations in this country. Does this not underline the point that has already been made about the need not only to continue to work with but to retain the confidence of the council of the Arab League? Will the Leader talk about other ways in which the Government might be attempting to counter such a narrative and deny it the currency that it could begin to gain that would be so damaging to intercommunity relations here?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter raises some extremely important points. We will have all seen in the press and on our television those who have used inflammatory language for their own ends. There is no religious angle here whatever. This country and the United Nations are motivated by a humanitarian desire to bring some sort of peace and opportunity to the people of Libya. The best way for us to put that message across, including to communities in this country, is to repeat it and to explain what is really happening. It is a very human approach across humanity that crosses religious boundaries that we should seek to work together to bring peace and stability to this region.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, given that it has taken 28 minutes for a Muslim, and indeed a woman, to get in on these questions, I wonder whether I, coming from the Muslim world, may ask my noble friend whether he agrees that, had we stood by and done nothing, it would have appeared to the 1.5 billion people in the Muslim world that our warm words were hypocrisy of the most egregious order.

My noble friend dealt with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by saying that he thought that the arms embargo applied to every entity in Libya. I refer him to Paragraph 4 of UN Resolution 1973, which seems to indicate that it is possible, under protecting civilians and civilian-populated areas, notwithstanding Paragraph 9 of UN Resolution 1970, for people to participate in giving armed assistance to the insurgents. Will he say whether the Government are talking to the Gulf Co-operation Council states to help financially, even if they are not prepared to do so militarily?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her useful intervention. She is quite right to talk about what would have happened if we had stood by and a massacre had taken place and about the countries and the peoples who would have accused us of allowing it to happen without raising a hand in protest.

My noble friend also talked about the Security Council resolution. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, is also correct and allows me to clarify the position. As I understand it, arms may be supplied, but—this is key—only with the express approval of the United Nations Security Council sanctions committee. That is a key hurdle. There is no ability simply to arm different parts of Libya at will; it has to be done with the agreement of the United Nations.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords—

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords—

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, shall we hear from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, first?

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. He mentioned that the Libyan air defence system had been knocked out—an essential prerequisite for setting up a no-fly zone. The cost of doing that is not inconsiderable; Tomahawks check out at about £500,000, and Sky Shadows for not much less. Hopefully there will be no need to use so many of those weapons in the future. Nevertheless, the cost already of these operations and the ongoing cost will not be inconsiderable. Will the Minister confirm that these costs will be met entirely from the contingency fund and not from the defence vote?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, much as I would like to, I cannot confirm that to the noble and gallant Lord. I can, however, confirm again that the air defences have been broadly knocked out. Of course the noble and gallant Lord, with all his considerable experience, understands the cost of these arms, but this is the kind of action that we would expect our Armed Forces to be able to deal with. If costs escalate substantially over the next few weeks, no doubt the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will need to discuss where this money will come from.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord referred to resources. Since the primary purpose of this is the protection of civilians, and since the regime is the biggest threat to civilians, in the absence of either a change of heart by the regime, which seems highly improbable, or a change of regime, we have to consider that this no-fly zone might be sustained for the long term as necessary. In Iraq, for instance, to protect the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south, one such zone lasted for 12 years. Will the noble Lord assure us that the Government not only have the resolve to stay the course on this but, following some of the comments that have just been made, that we have the resources to continue to play our part in it in the light of the recent defence review?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, asks an immensely good question. He is right to say that it might be for the long term, and none of us can say at this stage what the long term is. We have taken decisions over the course of the past few weeks on the need for a no-fly zone and we have constructed an international alliance. We will wish to maintain that and to get other countries to provide military assets. If we are successful in doing so then there is every reason to believe that the pressure that is being brought on the regime will prove a success. I think that all noble Lords listening to this exchange will have different views about what “long term” will mean. We will have to see how these events unfold before we can take a final decision on what the longest-term commitment from the United Kingdom will be.

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, if we are to learn the lessons of Iraq, is it not essential that, during the operations currently under way, we do everything that we can to protect the power stations, the water supply, sanitation—all the public sector infrastructure? In that context can the noble Lord tell us whether our cross-government stabilisation unit—not just DfID but also, across departments, the FCO and the MoD—is at the heart of the medium and long-term stabilisation planning? Is the stabilisation planning feeding into the decision-making now? We learnt from Iraq that it has to be a current process, not a past idea. Finally, will the UN lead stabilisation efforts in the medium and long term? We should play our part but, clearly, this needs to be an international concern.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that this is a concern. Of course, what has been happening is that it is Colonel Gaddafi and his troops and other armed forces who have been causing such difficulty and damage to electricity and water supplies, particularly in the town of Misurata. It is no part of the coalition’s objective to try to degrade those kinds of not just economic but humanitarian assets.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, as regards Security Council Resolution 1973, would not the Leader of the House also agree that the decision of China two weeks ago to support the referral of Colonel Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court firmly puts human rights at the heart of this issue? In that regard, the Leader said in the Statement that Libya has been suspended from the United Nations Human Rights Council. Does he agree that it something of a paradox that a country that was responsible for the killing of WPC Fletcher, responsible for the Lockerbie bombing and responsible for the atrocities now being committed against its own citizens was ever a member of that body in the first place? As we come to review the membership of the Human Rights Council, should we not also review our arms policies? British arms are not only being used now in this theatre in Libya but also being deployed elsewhere in the Middle East against pro-democracy demonstrators.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is a paradox and he is entirely right—it is a paradox. We remember not only WPC Fletcher and the atrocity of Lockerbie but also the years of support for the IRA perpetrated by Colonel Gaddafi. We have a very robust arms policy in place. As I know the noble Lord believes and clearly understands, the aim of that policy is to keep continually under review what is exported and to which country it is exported.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, 95 per cent of Libya’s export earnings come from oil and gas, and 75 per cent of all Libyan oil is exported to western Europe. Surely the issue of oil flows and the destination of revenue must be a consideration in the mind of Governments when key decisions are taken on the way to proceed. We have a lot at stake in terms of oil.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, our overriding objective is to protect the civilian population in Libya; that is the purpose of the action that we have taken. But the noble Lord is right to say that regimes can be sustained by their revenues, including those from oil. This question is in the mind not only of the Government but of the United Nations.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

Will my right honourable and noble friend bear in mind that very serious allegations have been made from within Libya that Colonel Gaddafi had foreknowledge of the Lockerbie outrage before it occurred? Will he also keep in mind that the Lord Advocate in Scotland has said that she may consider reopening the Lockerbie case?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is extremely important and valuable. I am sure that it is entirely right for the Lord Advocate in Scotland to keep the case closely under review.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, following the questions put by my noble friend Lord Reid and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has any thought been given to British aircraft operating from bases in France? At present, they have to make a 3,000-mile round trip.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, British aircraft are currently relocating to bases in southern Italy.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, while no one envies the grave task of my noble friend and my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in wrestling with these great decisions, can he confirm that the UN Security Council resolution was supported by only 10 members out of 15? The five countries that abstained included the likes of India, Germany and Brazil. Their reservations were that they felt that diplomatic channels had not been exhausted; that there was a risk that this action would galvanise support behind Gaddafi; and that military action would also pose a risk to civilians.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, different countries take different decisions at different times. No country voted against the Security Council resolution; 10 out of 15 voted in favour, and only nine votes were required for it to be carried. Events as they unfold demonstrate that it was right to take military action over the course of the weekend and to protect civilians on the ground.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day)

Relevant documents: 10th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 8th Report from the Constitution Committee.

16:17

Clause 1 : Polling days for parliamentary general elections

Amendment 11

Moved by

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

11: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “fifth” and insert “fourth”

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, this amendment goes to the heart of the Bill in that it seeks to reduce the period of a fixed-term Parliament from five years to four years. This important Bill may well bring about a significant change to our politics by changing the position from a situation in which the norm for our Parliaments is to last around three years and eight months to four years—with a maximum of five years—to a norm for our Parliaments to last for five years, with the possibility of going below that period only in exceptional circumstances.

The reason why the proposal in the Bill has been advanced has been given on the basis of high principle. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said that:

“The Fixed-term Parliaments Bill delivers a key strand of the ambitious political and constitutional reform agenda which this Government have pledged to deliver”.

He went on to say:

“There is now a consensus across the country—dare I say brought to a head by the expenses scandal but which had been forming for some time—that the political system in this country needs to be reinvigorated”.—[Official Report, 1/3/2011; cols. 929-30.]

The noble and learned Lord is nodding helpfully. He is putting forward this Bill as part of that reinvigoration process.

His leader, Nick Clegg, has spoken in a similar vein. The Select Committee of this House which reported on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill had the privilege of Mr Clegg appearing in front of it. Its report states:

“The Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is just one part of a package of proposed reforms intended by the Government to make the political system ‘far more transparent and accountable’. In his evidence, the Deputy Prime Minister told us that: ‘it is an unambiguous judgment on our part that reducing the power of the executive, seeking to boost the power of the legislature, making the legislatures more accountable to people ... collectively introduces the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater control over politicians’”.

The Deputy Prime Minister has also said that the time has come to stop people being allowed to,

“play politics with the dates of a general election”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/10; col. 40.]

That is the high-flown basis on which the matter is put forward.

Happily, we have the account of the circumstances in which the five-year term was agreed, provided by Mr David Laws. I quote him from the introduction to his book:

“My intention in writing this book is not to describe an all-too-brief Cabinet career. It is instead to inform those who are interested in this important period of British politics and to make sure that an accurate account is left of what really happened in May 2010 before memories fade, myths grow and the evidence is lost”.

On page 98, he writes that Andrew Stunell pointed out to the Conservative negotiators that,

“trust and confidence was very important to us, and that we wouldn’t want to find the PM calling an election at a time that did not suit us. ‘That works both ways!’ said William Hague. We mentioned that our own policy was for four-year, fixed-term Parliaments. George Osborne made the point that five-year parliaments were better, as they allowed governments to get into implementing their plans before having to start worrying about the timing of the electoral cycle. We made no objection to this, and Britain was on its way to five-year, fixed-term parliaments, for the first time in its history”.

That is how the Liberal Democrats moved from four years to five years; they did it because of the problem of trust. We should look at the proposals that are being put forward by the coalition with a moderately jaundiced eye, particularly because of the disingenuous way in which it is being done.

However, that does not relieve this House from considering as a matter of principle for the British people whether the right period is five years or four years. We are clear that the evidence—and this should be decided on the basis of evidence—is strongly in favour of four years rather than five. A mistake that the coalition persistently makes, and made in relation to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill as well, is that because judgment is required in coming to a conclusion on whether a particular course should be taken, all evidence can therefore be ignored. One simply, for example, has a conversation with Mr Andrew Stunell which lasts 40 seconds, at which point you abandon the policies that one has adopted for the previous 20 years. That does not sound to me like the exercise of judgment; it sounds like playing politics with the date of the next election, which is precisely what the Deputy Prime Minister said should not happen.

We in this House have an especial responsibility in determining what the length of a Parliament should be. It is an area where the Parliament Act does not normally apply, although I accept that its being five years is not the reason for its not applying. Nevertheless, it is an area where this House has an especial responsibility to ensure that the matter is looked at on the basis of evidence.

What does the evidence show? The Select Committee looking at the Bill heard evidence, which did not happen in terms of pre-legislative scrutiny, and concluded unequivocally that the evidence showed that four years was the right answer rather than five. In her speech at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said:

“The weight of evidence from British and international experts to the committee was against a five-year norm as against a five-year maximum”.

We should remember that this legislation involves a change from a five-year maximum to a five-year norm. She continued:

“My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has already quoted Democratic Audit, which expressed alarm that a five-year term would present, ‘a reversal of a long struggle for more accountable government’. Overseas experience, for example from Canada and Sweden, suggested, in the words of witnesses, that, ‘there seems to be a kind of natural rhythm around four years’, and, ‘four years is more consistent with voter expectations’, all of which appears inconsistent with the Deputy Prime Minister’s evidence to us that his ‘unambiguous aim’ is to, ‘make the legislature more accountable to the electorate and to introduce the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater control over politicians’. Our evidence suggests very clearly that this unambiguous aim may not be achieved by this Bill”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; cols. 1005-1006.]

The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield said:

“As well as the biorhythmic arithmetic, we need to consider the quality of government and political life in the fifth year of Parliaments that have gone to the wire. They have rarely been shining patches in the life of Administrations. Ministers are often tired and accident prone. The palette of the electorate becomes progressively more jaded. A kind of pre-electoral blight sets in. Of course it could be argued that the final year of a fixed-term four-year Parliament would be similarly blighted. Certainly, the press would succumb to its customary pre-election frenzy as the last year deepened. However, the blight is likely to be less pronounced towards the end of a four-year span than a five-year one, and accountability is more likely to be enhanced by a four-year cycle”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 935.]

My noble friend Lord Grocott said:

“There is no doubt that the fifth year of a Parliament, in our constitutional history and experience if not in theory, is nearly always a completely unsatisfactory year”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 958.]

The overwhelming view expressed during the course of the Second Reading debate, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, and some Back-Benchers on the Government’s side, was that five-years as the norm is a bad idea. That was the weight of the evidence before the Select Committee and the experience of active politicians such as my noble friend Lord Grocott, so where is the evidence in favour of five years? I have looked hard to find it. I have read very carefully the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to see what arguments he advanced. He said that it would be possible to plan more easily if you had five-year terms. I fail to understand why planning cannot take place whether the norm is four years or five years. It is an entirely bogus argument.

Secondly, the point was made that you would have a longer time in which to implement your provisions. The throw-away remark of Mr George Osborne which appears in Mr Laws’s book appears to be the reason for five years. It states:

“George Osborne made the point that five-year Parliaments were better, as they allowed governments to get into implementing their plans before having to start worrying about the timing of the electoral cycle”.

Presumably, that would depend entirely upon the length of time their plans took in any individual case. It is therefore difficult to see the force of that argument.

As was said at Second Reading, when Asquith introduced the current arrangements he made it clear that he thought a five-year maximum would, in practice, lead to a four-year period of time, which he said was sufficiently close at some stages to the previous election and sufficiently near to the next election to lead to accountability. If the coalition were serious about trying to reinvigorate our politics, it would at least address that issue. The consequence of there having been a four-year fixed term is that there would have been four fewer general elections between now and 1945. If your aim is to connect more with the electorate, surely reducing the number of general elections rather than increasing them will have precisely the opposite effect of that which Mr Nicholas Clegg and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, put forward.

16:30

There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that this proposal is put forward as means of gluing the coalition together. Mr David Laws says that that is the reason. As I said at Second Reading, there is no need for an Act of Parliament, bogusly dressed up as a piece of high constitutional principle, in order to achieve that. All you need do is stick by your word if you are a Tory or a Liberal Democrat. I ask the coalition to please think again about our constitution. Is it genuinely better for Britain and for encouraging trust in our politicians to say that now there should be longer between elections than previously? I earnestly ask the coalition to consider whether the electorate might think that the coalition is doing this so that it can stay in power for as long as possible.

That sense is perhaps increased by the broken promises the coalition has made in relation to the conduct of the Bill. On 25 May 2010, Mr David Heath, the Deputy Leader of the House, said that there would be no guillotines—but there were. He said that he would favour pre-legislative scrutiny as long as it did not lead the Bill to go over into the next Session. Despite the fact that this Session was then extended until May 2012, he reneged on that particular promise. This is a matter of some importance and it is not too late for the coalition to rethink what is best for the British constitution and to perhaps accept the overwhelming weight of evidence from academics, active politicians, committees that have looked at it, the Minister’s own party, my party, my noble friend Lord Plant, the three respected Back-Benchers who over the 10 years since 1993 have introduced fixed-term Parliament Bills—Tony Wright, David Howarth and my noble friend Lord Rooker—all of whom have favoured four years.

Does the noble and learned Lord not think that maybe five years is the wrong length of time and that four years is right? If he is not able to persuade the coalition to change its mind, I hope that this House, having considered the evidence, will conclude that the right way to protect the constitution is to support the amendment and reduce the period of the fixed term to four years. I beg to move.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I will make a brief speech since I have put my name to the amendment. In the course of his reply at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, described the question now before the Committee as “the key issue”. He went to on to say that,

“there is no absolutely right or wrong answer in that regard—it is a judgment”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 1044.]

That point has been made by many noble Lords in the course of the debate. Unfortunately, to describe something as a question of judgment does not necessarily make the answer any easier but it does, I suggest, point the way to the right starting place. In this case, that must be to look at what other sound judges have said on the subject, especially those who have made a study of our constitution. That is surely a better approach than simply, for example, counting up the number of countries worldwide which have chosen five years rather than four, or four years rather than five.

I wish to start with two of the witnesses who gave evidence before the Select Committee, Professor Dawn Oliver and Professor Bogdanor. It happens that I know them both; they are both pre-eminent in the field of constitutional law and practice and they both say that they would choose four years rather than five. So did Professor Bradley—and I hope that the Committee will forgive me for simply mentioning their names, without quoting from them—along with Professor Padgett, Dr Milner and Dr Fox. None of those witnesses who gave evidence expressed a view in favour of five years. In the other place, Professor Robert Hazell preferred four years, as did Professor Blackburn, whose evidence is important because he is the man who has made a particular study of this very issue. So the professional evidence is really unanimous; it is certainly all one way. In the Constitution Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, tested the witnesses giving evidence, but it is fair to say that they did not hedge in any way, or flinch from what they had said. So it is not surprising that the Constitution Committee came down as strongly as it did in favour of four years. In contrast, the Government’s reply to the committee’s report, in paragraphs 12 to 15, seems feeble in the extreme.

If academic evidence was all one way, so also with two or three notable exceptions were the views expressed at Second Reading in this House. I have in mind the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—again I shall simply list the names—and the noble Lords, Lord Hennessy, Lord Grocott, Lord Norton and Lord Morgan, and the noble Baroness. Lady Taylor. I would assume that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, was also of that view, having regards to the conclusions of the Plant commission, although he did not in fact mention this particular point in the course of his speech.

Of the notable exceptions, I regret very much not being able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, or the noble Lord, Lord Marks, who favoured five years rather than four because they thought that four years would not allow long enough for sensible policy-making and parliamentary debate. I accept that during the fourth year of a four-year Parliament the coming general election would begin to loom large but, even so, four years is surely long enough for the electorate to judge the Government’s performance to date. That is what in a democracy matters most and it is what Professor Oliver meant—I think it was her—when she referred to the democratic deficit if we chose five years rather than four. That is clearly what Professor Bogdanor meant when he said that five years would make Parliament less accountable to the public. In addition to those theoretical arguments from eminent experts, there is the practical argument that four years fits in better with the devolved institutions.

So what are the Government’s arguments in favour of five years? They are not altogether apparent. I looked carefully at what Mr Harper, the Minister in charge of the Bill, had to say on the subject when he was pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater. He said:

“If we had been starting with a clean sheet of paper, we might have reached a different conclusion, but we started from our existing position where the length of a Parliament is up to five years”.

He was saying that the Government might well have chosen four years but for the fact that five years is the current maximum under the Parliament Act 1911. I simply do not follow the logic of that argument. If we are trying to do our best to find the right number of years for a fixed term of Parliament by taking all relevant factors into account, surely of all the factors the current maximum is the least relevant, unless you take as your objective giving the Government of the day, whether they be Labour or Conservative, as long as possible within the existing maximum. The objective should be entirely different; to make the Government and, indeed, Parliament itself more accountable to the public.

In conclusion, briefly, what is before us today is a constitutional issue. It is not, perhaps, of the greatest importance but it is certainly of some importance and it would therefore be highly desirable to reach a consensus if we can. Unfortunately, there is no room for a compromise between four years and five years. We often reach a consensus in that way but no one, I think, suggests a fixed term of four and a half years. When the Government chose five years, they could not have had before them the evidence which is now before us so, like the noble and learned Lord, I hope very much that they will give way on this occasion and accept the amendment. If they do not and insist on their opinion in this matter, despite the great weight of opinion the other way, there will be little point in anyone ever giving evidence before Select Committees again. They will simply be wasting their time. For that reason, I will support the amendment.

[Lord Stirrup]

My Lords, a key argument advanced by the Government in favour of five-year fixed terms as opposed to those of four years is that it will improve overall government effectiveness, because there will be fewer elections and therefore less distraction to the Government in having to fight them. In mulling over this question, I have found it useful to think about the whole lifespan of a Government rather than the individual terms that go to make that up. Modern experience seems to be that most Governments serve for two or three terms. They occasionally serve for one or four but two or three seems to be the norm.

On that basis, modern experience is that a two-term Government will serve for about nine years and a three-term Government for about 13. That is because most Governments go to the polls every four years, except in their final term when they realise that the jig is probably up and hang on for as long as possible. Actual experience since the Second World War is that two-term Governments have served for even shorter periods, because of the narrowness of their initial victory and the need to go to the country early to try to secure a workable majority. Even setting that to one side, we have two-term Governments of nine years and three-term Governments of 13 years under the current system.

Under the proposals in the Bill, we would have Governments of 10 years or 15 years. However, in the second or third term of each Government, they seem to run out of steam. The toxins that are produced by reshuffled Ministers and disaffected and disappointed Back-Benchers build up to such a degree that the Government find it increasingly difficult to provide coherent and decisive leadership. They therefore end either their second or third term in a rather weakened state. It seems to me that these dynamics are likely to occur at about the same pace under whichever system we adopt so it seems likely that, under the Bill’s proposals, we would have weakened Governments limping on for about one or two years longer than they currently do. I find it hard to see how that can be construed as an overall increase in government effectiveness. Indeed, it seems quite the opposite; that four-year fixed terms would probably produce such an increase in effectiveness, rather than the reverse.

Perhaps I might make one final point. I may have a rather idiosyncratic view of this but the essential and, indeed, the defining characteristic of any democratic electoral system of whatever model is the unassailable power and right to remove incumbents. This is to say not that doing so at too frequent an interval is conducive to effective government but that one should be very cautious about extending the period at which that is customarily done. That seems to me to be inescapable under five-year fixed-term Parliaments.

16:45

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I am tempted to talk about the word “consensus”. I said on day one of the Committee that New Zealand had a three-year term of Parliament. When the cut in the number of UK seats was devised as a consensus between the two parts of the coalition, I think that one lot wanted to get rid of 60 seats and the other wanted 100 seats, so they went for a compromise of 50. On the basis of that, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that perhaps there could be a compromise here but it could be three years rather than four or five.

I turn more seriously to the question of four years. As the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, the Minister acknowledged at Second Reading that this was a judgment and there was no absolutely right or wrong answer. I feel that the Government have made the wrong judgment in going for five years rather than four.

There is a lot to quote from earlier debates. I have chosen the quote from Herbert Asquith that is in the report, partly because it was exactly 100 years and one month ago today when he said that we should be desirous of a House of Commons that is,

“always either fresh from the polls which gave it authority, or—and this is an equally effective check upon acting in defiance of the popular will—it is looking forward to the polls at which it will have to render an account of its stewardship”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/1911; col. 1749.]

More recently, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said on 1 March:

“as the election comes up accountability is a very, very strong thing indeed”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 1045.]

For any MP, he went on to say, an election is very effective for accountability.

The Deputy Prime Minister, who has already been quoted, claimed that the Government’s ambitious programme would transfer power away from Parliament and empower people. So we have to ask why the Government want to diminish accountability by extending the life of the other place from four years to five. It cannot be about increasing accountability. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has suggested, to think about two periods of five years—that is, 10 years —is what makes me think that the figure of five is wrong. Ten years seems to be too long. Someone just short of their 18th birthday might have to wait until they were 23 to vote, and they would be 28 before they could vote again. The period from 18 to 28 is the whole of the setting down of one’s life, but the Government are suggesting having only one vote during that time.

Similarly, imagine a Government with a small majority or indeed no overall control. It would be extremely hard to run the country like that, as I know, but the Government would be denied the right to go for a working majority, somewhat dreading every death or resignation and the resultant by-election—or maybe hoping for them so that they could then engineer a defeat on a confidence vote. Leaving it that way to call an election could mean that it would happen at the very worst of times: in the middle of a freezing winter, during school holidays, in a financial crisis or even at a time of national mourning, to say nothing of major international events or indeed the convenience of Her Majesty. Some of those questions are about the principle of a fixed-term Parliament, but they are far more likely to arise and be more acute with an over-lengthy five-year Parliament.

The question is particularly pertinent for a coalition. A coalition is new to the electorate and therefore needs a vote sooner on its performance than five years. Also, because its manifesto was never put to the electorate or endorsed at a general election, it seems right that it should not be run for a full five years. Although in general four years is right, it is even more acute either for a Government with a small majority or indeed for a new coalition that four years down the line rather than five is the right time to involve the electorate in whether they wish that Government to continue.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about the length of the period between elections in normal times. If it is agreed that five years will be written into legislation, over a period of 20 years the electorate will be denied an opportunity to go to the polls to decide what form the Government will take and which Government will be returned. We had an opportunity last week to hear the Minister on this matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was good enough to talk about it. He said that the present system gave awesome power to the Prime Minister of the day. However, what seems to have happened in the room that was talked about in the story from the autobiography of Mr Laws is that awesome power was given to the people around that table. It strikes me that many of the people around that table, who may be very good at economics and other matters, were not experienced parliamentarians. If they had been experienced parliamentarians, they would have said what I am saying today: four years is far better than five.

I ask the Minister to consider four years for the sake of the House and how it operates. I know what he said last week, when we had a warm-up and were able to hear some of his thinking. That is good; we could then think about what he had to say and come back, as we have today. I think the Minister said that his case was that in the fifth year Members of Parliament decide that they want to be in their constituencies. That is not because they are lazy—far from it. They want to work on the hustings; they know an election is coming up and want to be in their constituency. The Minister’s case was that they would do that in the fourth year. However, they would not do that because the Government would not run out of legislation in the fourth year. Therefore, if Members of Parliament missed three-line Whips, it would be duly noted in their constituency. Constituents would say, “Why was he or she here on a Tuesday, missing a three-line Whip?”. That is an incentive to keep Members of Parliament here in the fourth year, rather than in the fifth.

I bolster the case about Governments running out of legislation in the fifth year. The House of Commons Library tells me that in 2009-10 Session, there was not one vote taken on the Floor of the House of Commons on a Thursday. They had topical debates on a Thursday. Some were on very important matters but they were debates. On Thursdays we turned the House of Commons into a debating society, which meant there was no record of whether anyone turned up to represent their constituents. I reiterate what I said the other week. Tam Dalyell, an excellent parliamentarian, told me as a young MP, “Michael, if they want you, tell them you will be available on a Saturday or a Friday night. Don’t take the sleeper up to Glasgow and then get back down for the vote. Tell them that your job is to be in the House of Commons”. However, the Executive of the House of Commons at that time were pleased to have topical debates with no votes so that everyone who wanted to could get away, which meant that more power was put into the hands of the Executive. That is contrary to what the Liberals have said on the Floor of the House of Commons and, indeed, here. They have said, “We don’t want the Executive to get more power”.

Last week the Minister said what fantastic power we were giving to the Prime Minister by enabling him or her to call an election on a date of their choosing, when the polls looked good. The coalition comprises two parties that fought like cats and dogs in the House of Commons—I had to hold their jackets at times—because their policies were so different. However, the leaders of those parties said: “We are getting together to sort out the financial problems of this nation; that’s why we are together, but here’s the wee deal—that we get a five-year Parliament”. There are people with more knowledge of political history than I but I put it to the Committee that Ted Heath might have had the power to go to the country that the Minister talks about, but it did not work for him. Ted Heath said: “It’s me or the miners”, but the country did not re-elect him. He did not serve his full term. Therefore, the great power that he had did not work in his favour; nor did it work in Harold Wilson’s favour in 1970. I remember hearing as a young canvasser that Labour would win again, and the polls all said that. Harold Wilson was perceived as the winner, but during the 1970 election word came through that he would lose, and he did. The same happened with Jim Callaghan. Had Jim Callaghan gone to the country before the great winter of discontent, perhaps he would have won—who knows? The Prime Minister may have awesome power but it has been shown that that power does not always work in his favour.

The noble and gallant Lord spoke about disgruntled Ministers. I suggest that there will be a stack of disgruntled former Ministers. I can hear them now saying, when they were appointed, “Tony said I am the only one who can do this job”. Then they go on to Sky TV—the lovely thing about Sky TV is that if you cannot sleep in the middle of the night, you go on to Sky TV—and the same Minister says, “What a wonderful Prime Minister we have”. I do not know whether it was reported that one Minister said: “I would jump under a bus for the Prime Minister”. I would not jump under a bus for anybody. I do not know whether it was a moving bus or a stationary bus but it shows how much that Minister loved the Prime Minister. Then there is a reshuffle because the Prime Minister has a difficulty; he has to get fresh blood in because the Back-Benchers are saying, “They’ve had their turn at being Ministers; we want to be Ministers now”.

I do not want to mention names but it has been reported that the gentleman who wrote the book might get back into government. I say good luck and three cheers to him. However, there are too many Ministers on the Front Bench so somebody must fall off the end. The logic of that gentleman getting back into government is that someone else will lose their job and become a disgruntled former Minister. The lovely thing about that is that the same people, when they lose their jobs, do not say any more that the Prime Minister is a great person. They sidle up to you in the tea room and say, “He’s a rotter. He’s a bounder”. That gave me an opportunity to say, “But you were not saying that about him two years ago”. The media then make mischief because they have a pool of individuals who are willing to criticise the Government.

That then leads me to consider the people who matter—the electorate. They turn on their televisions, as do the politicians, and they say, “What is going on here? They are all fighting like cats and dogs”. They then think of the old saying in the Bible that a house divided against itself will surely fall, and they say to themselves, “We elected these people to be unified. They promised us unity and now they are fighting with one another”. That will happen in the fifth year. For the sake of running the House properly, four years is far better than this fixed five years.

17:00

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am tempted briefly to intervene, partly because of what the noble Lord, Lord Martin, said. I always remember that one of his predecessors—the late, great Jack Weatherill, who many of your Lordships will remember from his time in this House—once said to me, “If you have any doubt, do not go in and listen to the debate; just stay out and vote”. I must say that I have heard every word in this debate and uttered one or two myself, but the more I look at the Bill and listen to what noble Lords say, the more convinced I am that this is a wholly unnecessary piece of legislation.

If the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister wish to make a binding undertaking to go to the country in May 2015, there is nothing in our current legislation that would stop them. I can well understand why the two leaders of the new Government—a coalition which is a new experiment in many ways—wanted a period of five years. God bless them, they can have five years, and I genuinely wish them success; but I am not so naive as to suppose that if there is some extraordinary rift or argument during those five years, all those protestations will not fall to the side and there will be an election. The Bill provides for an escape clause, in Clause 2, which we shall debate next week. I have tabled a significant amendment to delete it and to replace it with something else. However, I must not rehearse those arguments now.

The more I listen to this debate, the more two things come to mind. The noble Lord, Lord Martin, talked about the fifth year. Everything he said was correct. I was there for the five-year Parliaments that existed between 1970 and last year. It is quite true that, in every case, the fifth year was the least glorious. However, it would be a little naive to suggest that there would not be a concentration on the forthcoming election in the fourth year. One has only to look across the Atlantic at the ridiculous two-year cycles for the House of Representatives and the four-year presidential cycle to see that potential presidential candidates are already being lined up by the Republicans although the general election is a long time ahead. Of course that would happen here as well. Therefore, we in this House have to accept—in my case reluctantly—that the House of Commons has sent us the Bill. We have the ultimate power to reject it completely. However, that would not be an advisable course for your Lordships' House to take, even though we would be entirely within our rights to take it. Instead, we should decide whether the five-year term enshrined in the Bill is the right way forward.

The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have put themselves into a difficult position, because if we insert “four” rather than “five” into the legislation, their resolution made last year to serve five years will be blown apart. Of course, the House of Commons would send back the Bill. Therefore, I suggest that perhaps the best way forward is to accept, with whatever degree of reluctance but with total understanding, the five-year wish of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, but then to look to the future beyond that to consider what should be the normal life of a Parliament. On that question, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in an excellent speech, put his finger on a number of very important points. Beyond 2015, it would be prudent and sensible to listen to the advice not only of many theoretical experts and academics, but of others who have had practical experience of politics, and to say that if the Government insist on fixed-term Parliaments after 2015, the term should be four years.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I am not sure that I would be happy with the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made, although I can see merit in it. However, I was very interested in what he said about the Bill laying bare the criticism that has been made of the Prime Minister for using as a defence of the five-year Parliament and of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill the argument that somehow it will take away power from the Prime Minister. It will take away power from subsequent Prime Ministers. As David Laws's book and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spelt out clearly, it was the Prime Minister who decided, with the Deputy Prime Minister, that the next general election would be five years hence, and gave the precise date. He did it far longer in advance than previous Prime Ministers, but none the less he made the decision himself.

I will address a comment made by a number of noble Lords in various debates that deserves a response from people like me who do not like the Bill but feel that if we must have fixed terms, we would prefer four years to five. The criticism directed toward us is that the worries in the final year of a five-year Parliament are not significantly different from the difficulties that come at the conclusion of a four-year Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, touched on that. The argument is that people will be electioneering for a full year, knowing when the election will come, that the Government will gear their legislative programme to the timing of the election, and that the situation will not be significantly different regardless of whether that election comes at the end of four years or five.

However, it is my experience, and that of many other noble Lords who have spoken, that a five-year Parliament historically has been less successful than a four-year Parliament, and that the fifth year is always a tired and weary year, when the authority of the Government is running down and may or may not get renewed. It is often a very bad-tempered year, with constant demands from the Opposition for the Government to resign and put their record to the electorate. I will not quote names, but many Ministers in the fifth year of a Parliament want to retire but know that it would be disloyal to the Government to quit when an election is coming at a proximate but indeterminate date. A Parliament gets tired and needs refreshing. It is almost a relief when the election comes and a new Parliament can, with renewed vigour, come into operation with a new Government, although not necessarily of a new party. All sorts of things contribute to that. Members of Parliament announce their retirement during the course of a Parliament, but there would be far more such announcements towards the end of a five-year Parliament than towards the end of a four-year one. I had better be careful how I say this but people who know that they are retiring do not give it quite the full welly as they would if they thought they might be sitting in the following term.

There is also a practical problem. This is probably rather an esoteric point but I think that many in the Chamber will recognise it. With fixed five-year terms, when you have to commit yourself to fighting the next general election, which is normally around half-way through a Parliament, you are committing yourself to remaining in Parliament for at least eight years—no one dares to call a by-election these days, or at least they do so only very rarely—and that is a very big commitment to make, certainly when you get to about your mid-50s.

Therefore, in terms of the last year, there is a significant difference between a five-year and a four-year Parliament. Of course, this country has the advantage of a wonderfully flexible constitution, so we are able empirically to compare what has happened in the past with four and five-year Parliaments. I hope that I have at least attempted to answer the criticism that it really does not make much difference whether it is a four or a five-year term.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, may think that I am rather a sad figure but over the weekend I reflected on what he said in his response last week. He said something that threw me—I had not thought of it. I was arguing, as I am now, for a four-year Parliament—not of a fixed term but normally four years—and I challenged him on why on earth a Liberal Democrat within a Government would say that the electorate should be consulted less frequently, because I suggest to the Committee that that is what would happen. I suggested that since the Second World War there would have been 13 rather than 18 elections and the noble and learned Lord said, “Ah, you can’t really assume that that is the case because, under the provisions of this Bill, who knows how many elections there would have been. Some might have been instigated by the two-thirds rule”. On reflection, that is not the strongest of arguments. I hope that in responding to this debate he will at least concede that there could not have been more general elections than there would have been had his Act been in operation, because there is a maximum amount of time that a Parliament can sit. Therefore, it must surely be true that there would have been fewer. I think it is incredibly unlikely that the two-thirds provision would have precipitated an election. The only occasion when there was an early election due to parliamentary activity was when the Jim Callaghan Government lost the vote of confidence, and that would have applied under this legislation. In fact, it might not have applied and poor Jim Callaghan would have had to enter a 14-day cooling-off period, or whatever you call it. That has always struck me as an odd suggestion.

I have a final question for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. The defence that his leader gave of the proposal for a five-year Parliament is contained in the Second Reading debate of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. When challenged as to the justification for five years, he said:

“Leaving aside the very short Parliaments, half of all Parliaments since the war have run for more than four years, so five years is … in keeping with our current arrangements”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/10; col. 625.]

I do not know what he did at university, but it was not logic. That is the equivalent of a batsman saying, “My batting average would have been 100 if you eliminate the ducks”. Basically that is what he is doing in terms of averages. We need from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, a better justification for five years than has been offered to the Committee so far.

17:15

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, accepting, as I suspect we all do, that this is a matter of judgment, I suggest to the Committee that the judgment referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is best made by a serious assessment of the balance between, on the one hand, the likelihood—although not the certainty under the provisions of the Bill—of less frequent elections and, on the other, the stability that a five-year Parliament offers and the opportunity for the electorate to bring a greater maturity of judgment because of the experience that they have of the Parliament and the Government after five years rather than four years. In making that judgment I suggest that the historical precedents since the war are of limited assistance, precisely because we have not had fixed-term Parliaments.

One complaint of those who argue for four years is that the Bill substitutes five years for a maximum of five years and a norm of four years. That is the effect of the Bill, but the complaint ignores the fact that the effect in practice of the 1911 Act has been that, where a Government have had a working majority, the Parliament has lasted five years if the Prime Minister has believed that he or she will lose, which means that he or she has stayed for the full term. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Martin, argued that the fifth year tends to be a lame-duck year—an ineffective year. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said much the same thing. It is an ineffective year because, it is said, in the case of five-year Parliaments, the Government is tired and expects to lose. However, you cannot deduce from that that, where everyone knows that the next election is fixed for the end of the five years, there will be similar exhaustion.

In the past, when a Prime Minister has expected to win, he or she has gone after four years. That analysis is borne out by the elections of 1964, 1979, 1997 and 2010. In each of those years, the election was held at the end of five years and the Government went on to lose. An exception is the election of 1992, when the Government expected to lose and were rather surprised to win. The only other exception to that analysis, although it is not a real exception, is the election of February 1974, which noble Lords will know was held for special reasons. However, that election gives us a useful analysis of whether it is true to say that there would have been four fewer elections or whether you can count the elections and say that there would have been that many fewer. I suggest that under the provisions of this Bill it is highly likely that there would in any case have been an election in 1974 because when the then Prime Minister said, “I want an election to determine the issue of who governs the country, the Government or the miners”, the then Opposition to Mr Heath would have accepted the challenge and voted for an election, so that Parliament would have been dissolved on a two-thirds majority basis. It is not possible to say how many fewer elections there might have been. The Bill makes the basis for Dissolution more logical and removes what we say is the unfairness of allowing the Prime Minister sole charge of when there is an election.

As we know, the average length of Parliaments since the war has been three years and 10 months. I suggest that the calculation of that average term is of no assistance. The principal point against the relevance of such an average is that it takes into account all those early elections called by the Prime Minister in the exercise of precisely the power that the Bill is designed to remove. Secondly, it takes into account the very early elections of 1951, 1966 and October 1974. In that sense, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is right to say that it leaves out the ducks, but those ducks are important to leave out because, in the calculation of a sensible term for a Parliament with a working majority, those Parliaments where the Government had no working majority and had to go to the country early are of no assistance.

[Lord Bach]

I am interested in the noble Lord’s arguments. He knows that his party’s policy for many years was, honourably, that there should be fixed terms for four years. Did he support that policy? If not, was he always a five-year man? If he did support that policy, when was it that he changed his mind to five years? Was it, by any chance, around the time that the coalition was formed?

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

That is a perfectly fair question, because it is well known that it was Liberal Democrat policy to go for four-year fixed terms. However, it is quite clear that the formation of the coalition caused people to consider their policy and the arguments one way or the other. The coalition has put forward a programme for government. It is a considered view—which, I suggest, is no less right because it is a view come to after negotiation, the negotiations to which Mr Laws refers in the book that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is now reading—that that period gives more stable government. The question for this House is, in the light of what has happened, to consider whether five years is better than four. The history of the Liberal Democrat policy on the point does not assist us. We have to bring a new and balanced judgment to the question now before Parliament.

[Lord Cormack]

Surely if five years is what the leaders of the coalition want—I fully understand that, as I have made quite plain—we do not need the legislation for that. How does the noble Lord answer that point? They can have that under current legislation.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

The noble Lord is quite right to point that out, but it has long been Liberal Democrat policy, with which I firmly agree and consider extremely important, that we should have fixed-term Parliaments in the long term, because they make a level playing field. The question that we are considering in the context of the Bill is whether those Parliaments should be for four years or five. It is of no assistance to say that we can fix a Parliament for five years now and decide later. We are determining the right period under the Bill. This Parliament cannot bind its successors, as the noble Lord plainly knows. If a future Parliament should take a different view, it is for that Parliament to legislate, as my noble friend pointed out. However, on consideration of this Parliament and what we should do now, we say that, as a matter of principle, it is right to go for five years.

Understandable concern has been expressed on all sides of the House and by the Constitution Committee about the need for pre-legislative scrutiny. If we accept that there is a need for pre-legislative scrutiny of important legislation, then the first year of a Parliament will generally be given over in respect of important legislation to that scrutiny.

[Lord Cormack]

Not this time.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

I accept that; it gives rise to the concern that has been expressed and that I am, for these purposes, accepting. If it be the case that enactment of legislation starts in year two of a Parliament, and given the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Martin and Lord Grocott, which I think we all accept, that the last year of a Parliament is given over to preparing for a general election, a five-year Parliament leaves a period of three years for positive legislation and a four-year Parliament leaves only two years, because we all accept that inevitably the imminence of Dissolution makes legislation more difficult, as the time is limited in the last year. I suggest to the House that the stability that is required for the convenient and sensible passage of legislation is better achieved with three whole years between the first and last years.

In terms of government rather than simply legislation, I also suggest that four years runs a danger of leading to short-term planning, which inhibits a strategic approach to all forms of activity in government. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, at Second Reading.

On the other side, of course it is the case that regular recourse to the electorate is at the heart of our democratic system of government. However, there is no doubt that Governments that are too driven by early electoral considerations may not be the best or most effective Governments. The four-year term in the United States is frequently and rightly criticised for its shortened electoral cycle and for the fact that from far too early in the term the Administration are looking for the prospects of re-election—all political eyes are firmly fixed on the next election.

The last point is this: a shorter term has the effect of depriving the electorate of the time to judge on mature reflection the effectiveness of government policy and legislation. That is particularly true of a reforming Government who reform the way in which the public services are delivered and taxes and benefits are administered, as this Government will and as may be the case with many future Governments. That is the case because the preparations for the Dissolution and an election come at a time when much of what the Government have done during the term, particularly after the first year of the term—this brings me back to the point about pre-legislative scrutiny—has not had time to take effect, so the electorate have not had the opportunity to judge what the Parliament and the Government have done during the term.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, laughed when I talked about a matter of principle with reference to what I had previously described, and continue to describe, as a matter of judgment. Of course that is right, but I suggest that the better balance between four years and five years is the one that the Government have struck and incorporated in this Bill as unamended.

17:30

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, I keep hearing the words, “It is a matter of judgment”. I heard them from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on several occasions in connection with giving the electorate the power to decide. I just heard a reference to the importance of time for pre-legislative scrutiny and allowing people who are about to vote an opportunity to maturely evaluate the Government’s policy. I am beginning to feel as though we live in a different place, because we have a whole plethora of constitutional reforms before us, who have to vote on them, with no opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny and no opportunity to see how the first bit, the second bit, the third bit and the fourth bit come together.

Then, in the middle of it all, is the bit of the Bill that perhaps worries me even more than the five and four years: who, how and in what circumstances the proposed five or even four years could be varied. I have heard a variety of ways in which a Prime Minister can decide that it is a good time for an election if he thinks it is in his interest, although I think that convincing the Opposition that it is a good time for an election will be quite a hard task. Having heard all these arguments, however, I am not allowed to see what this coalition Government propose to do. This is against a background of assurances that I keep getting that they know where they are going and they know who is going with them, but it sure ain’t me because they are not telling me where they are going.

I have been asked to vote on changing the system of votes, which is being put to the people in the AV referendum, without being told what is being proposed for people being elected to this House. All these things keep being thrown at me by people who say, “Oh well, it is a matter of judgment”. In the end, a bit like the dance of the seven veils, all will be revealed. However, I want to know the whole picture now before I am asked to start pulling apart some of the parts of the structure of our constitution. The argument is therefore surely that it would have been better if the coalition had concentrated on fewer Bills that made fewer changes to the constitution, had put them out for quick pre-legislative scrutiny and did not Christmas-tree them. Those who have been in government know that the minute the whole plethora of people in any department see a Bill looming, they start hanging little baubles on it, complicating it and muddying the whole picture. I am therefore uneasy.

On the use of the term “judgment”, I think that it is a bit arrogant of the coalition—a new form of government in this country for a long time—to say, “We are making a judgment about when you can vote to judge us, and we are restricting the way in which it is going to be done”. Perhaps, having a somewhat warped political mind, I can see that it is just possible, in reaching an agreement to form a coalition, that neither party trusted the other and so the five years had to be set in concrete in case either one pulled the rug from under the other. However, I am then assured that in the middle of the Bill is the opportunity for the Prime Minister of the day suddenly to pull the rug out anyway, although I suppose he would have to get his Deputy Prime Minister to support him.

On the argument about the length of time that it takes to bring in legislation, in my view the public out there have the right to expect to be able to voice their view on what happens in the future. It is just possible that, within the next two years, some people who are currently members of the coalition will not want to be tied to a fixed term of five years. They could be members of either party; it is not always the most adulterous one who ends up getting divorced.

I am concerned. Why cannot we have a big picture for all these constitutional changes? Why cannot we substitute this judgment that we ought to be laying in concrete an agreement of convenience for this particular Government? Why are we wasting our time legislating to set that in concrete? We are wasting our time because they can do that anyway. They do not need this Bill to do that, so why on earth are we being told that they do? I am beginning to get suspicious, because from certain Benches—from parties to this Government—I keep hearing, “Well, we are voting for this now. It is not what we really want, but we will get what we want next time”. I have met the odd person out there who has said to me, “Hey, I watched that debate, and the Lib Dems said that they do not really like AV, but it is better than what we have, and anyway it is a road to somewhere else”.

Finally, I cannot resist remembering when I sat on those Benches over there during the first stage of House of Lords reform. I heard a member of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition at the time—a former Home Secretary—come out with the words, “The wicked thing the Labour Government are trying to do is force an extension of the life of government”. Who is doing it? Not us. Can we please have the big picture, can we ask the British people what they think, and can we not patronise them by saying, “You need longer to be able to judge us”?

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, I think most would agree that there is merit in the arguments on both sides of the debate on whether the term of Parliament should be fixed. However, if there is merit in the argument for the term being fixed at five years, it is merit that passed by both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats until the coalition agreement enlightened them. Nearly a year after that agreement, Ministers have still not managed to find a way of articulating that case persuasively.

The Government’s proposition is that they have a mandate for this proposal—this was one of the arguments used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, on Second Reading—because an appetite for political reform was manifested at the last general election. That is a questionable proposition, to put it at its politest, because it conflates an arguable general distrust and dislike of politicians with a wish for a specific proposal for a five-year fixed term for Parliament. The Government’s argument that five years is somehow part of our political culture—the Deputy Prime Minister has made this argument—ignores inconvenient facts about the average length of post-war Parliaments. Of the last seven Parliaments, for example, four have lasted for about four years and three for five years. Moreover, the proposition, which Ministers have also advanced, that the Parliament Act somehow supports this proposal confuses setting a maximum term with fixing a norm. Then, of course, there is the selective quoting of international examples, nearly always in discussions of constitutional reform—a refuge for the intellectually desperate.

Does it matter that the Government have so inadequately made the case for a fixed term of five years? I think it does. This is not a matter of a finely balanced judgment one way or another, with there being really nothing very much to choose between a four-year term and a five-year term. Of course there is an element of judgment in these things, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, so eloquently set out, the overwhelming weight of expert opinion is in favour of four years. Anything longer inevitably—logically, inevitably—delays the calling to account of the Executive, and it creates an accumulating democratic deficit.

In the absence of any persuasive arguments for a five-year term, this flaw is toxic. It is particularly toxic because of the process by which this Bill has been brought before Parliament and the damaging perception that this has created the motivation behind the selection of five years as the fixed term for Parliament. Due process and perceptions of motivation matter especially for constitutional legislation because they can create public trust in the integrity of our constitutional arrangements or they can destroy it. A constitution which does not command the trust and respect of the citizens it serves is a constitution without value.

So what has been the process for this Bill? There has been no manifesto commitment to its key detail or any compelling argument for it. There has not been a Green Paper, a White Paper or public consultation. The process has consisted simply of ramming this hastily and poorly drafted Bill through Parliament as quickly as the business managers can get it through. This creates a perception which has been widely voiced. I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for telling the House about the account given in Mr David Laws’ history of the formation of the coalition agreement. I am sure that Mr Laws did not wish to be quite as unhelpful to his colleagues who remain in government as he has turned out to be. Nevertheless, the citizen might legitimately ask, “Why did the Government suddenly abandon a historic Liberal Democrat commitment to a fixed four-year term?”. Why would two parties which are locked in an uneasy embrace, trying to find a way to govern together that does not lead to an electoral annihilation for one or other or both of them, suddenly decide to extend the fixed term to five years?

My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s quote from Mr George Osborne tells us everything that we need to know about this. The Government have yet to come up with one good argument about why the motivation for this move to a five-year term is nothing more than the search for short-term, partisan, political advantage, seeking to stay in power, locked together, for as long as they possibly can. Sadly—I say sadly because I know that many Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches have long and honourable histories of espousing constitutional reform—this sort of short-term partisan manoeuvring is coming to characterise this Government’s constitutional legislation. It injects poison into the system. It creates suspicion where there should be trust and volatility where there should be stability. This really is no way to legislate for constitutional matters.

Accepting this amendment would help to neutralise this poison, but I fear that the Minister—characteristically amiably, no doubt—will try to find reasons for resisting it. I fear that the Government will ignore the reservations, which we have heard over and over again in this debate, which has gone on now for nearly one and a half hours, just as they have ignored all the other doubts about their constitutional legislation, and that they will just whip this Bill through. Despite that, I hope that the noble and learned Lord who moved this amendment will test the opinion of the House on the matter, if not now then at Report. This House should do its constitutional duty whatever view Ministers take of theirs.

[Lord Dobbs]

This House pursues this discussion with considerable passion and at times almost with an element of ferocity, which is how it should be. But I have to admit that it has left me rather confused. I have done my best to follow the arguments. Should it be four years or five years? Should it be three years and 10 months or some other figure? Statistics have been hurled around this House and given a mythical, almost mystical, significance and, at times, even an ethical significance. Some say that “this figure is right and that figure is wrong”, and not just wrong but downright wicked. It is enough to make a young chap giddy.

For better or worse, as a party official and a prime ministerial adviser, I was involved with the process of helping to choose one or two election dates in the 1880s and 90s.

[Noble Lords]

You said the 1880s.

17:45

[Lord Dobbs]

Did I? My memory does not go back quite that far but I thank noble Lords. I can confirm that there was nothing mythical or mystical about it and least of all could the process be described as ethical. There is only one reason why Prime Ministers choose this or that election date and that is because he or she thinks that the chosen date gives them the best possible chance of winning. For a party leader, elections are rather like the gunfight of the OK Corral. There is no future for the loser; they are likely to be dragged out of the arena feet first and never seen again. Prime Ministers sweat over these decisions—even the fragrant ones.

We keep hearing that four years is best. The question remains: why have Prime Ministers so often chosen to hold an election after just four years? The answer is very simple. Except in the most extreme circumstances they do not go earlier because there is nothing to be gained: they will only be accused of cutting and running. They do not often carry on beyond four years for fear of running foul of events or the economy or the private excesses of some wayward Cabinet Minister. I am afraid that these decisions have nothing to do with the astrological significance of the figures four or five. It has simply been a matter of self-preservation.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, spoke about the natural rhythms. I think that in a previous debate we heard someone refer to the natural biorhythms of the British constitution, a point picked up in the Select Committee report. I admire the noble and learned Lord almost beyond expression. His knowledge of our constitution is profound but I fear that his romantic nature might have led him astray on this one. In my less than humble experience—Conservative chiefs of staff do not usually do humble or, if they do, they do not tend to survive—it has nothing to do with biorhythms: it is simply the uncertainty of that fifth year that leads Prime Ministers to opt for four—nothing else. But remove that uncertainty, as this Bill does, and I suspect that we will find that Prime Ministers are more than delighted to soldier on to the end with absolutely no complaint. They will carry on in Downing Street, their biorhythms entirely undisturbed. After all, Prime Ministers love office. They never know when to give up. They hang on as long as possible, and almost always too long, leaving their fingernails in the Downing Street carpet as they say goodbye.

Another argument, which was picked up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Martin, is that somehow a fifth year is always unsatisfactory; that for some metaphysical reason the Government will run out of steam after four years. We have heard of the term, the lame duck—the least glorious of years—but it is only the uncertainty that causes distraction, which is what this Bill does away with. Give a Prime Minister a certain election date and, instead of confusion, there will be a reasoned, possibly somewhat reckless, campaign of tax cuts, heady promises and kissed constituency babies—in other words, business as usual.

Of course, another argument has been put forward; namely, that a five-year term deprives the electors of a more frequent choice than four years. The logic of that is, of course, indisputable. But, if the noble Lord will forgive me, it is also absurd. Follow that logic and we would end up with elections every three years or two years or perhaps every year. Looking at the US congressional system where politicians are constantly campaigning, I am inclined to suggest that there is no obvious connection between more frequent elections on the one hand and better government on the other. Above all else, it is better government that we should be seeking.

There is no democratic deficit of the sort suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. There is no shortage of elections. We have more elections for more Parliaments than at any time in our history. But whether all those elections and elected politicians have given us better government I suspect is a matter to be discussed on another day.

The crucial point is this: should it be four years, should it be five, or three point something or other? Having dismissed the relevance of so many statistics, let me offer a few of my own. Looking back over the last eight elections, which takes us back an entire generation or more to the dark days of 1974, the average lifespan of a Parliament has been nearly four and a half years. To me that is just as legitimate as the figure which is so often quoted, that of three years and 10 months. But we are told that four years is what the people demand. If that is the case, where is the surge of public indignation, the outrage that our biorhythms have been disturbed and the voters left short-changed by four-and-a-half year or five-year parliaments? The argument about four years and only four years simply will not wash.

To garble the phrase, there are exaggerations, irrelevancies and political evidence. We have heard plenty of all three in this debate. If we are looking for a norm, it is four and a half years, not three years and 10 months, at least in our recent history. What should we read into that? Precisely nothing. Except that in every one of the last eight elections, the Prime Minister chose a polling date that was thought to be in his or her interest. It is self-interest, not the national interest, and there is no magic in a term of four years. That is because, of course, Prime Ministers have a terrible habit of stumbling to the conclusion that they are the national interest, and that is what lies behind these statistics, nothing more. Statistics will not resolve this issue for us; it is up to us.

[Lord Bach]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has mentioned the last eight elections. I may be slow in my arithmetic, but I think that would take us to 1979 as the first one he has chosen since there have been eight elections since then. I think he said that in the last eight elections, the Prime Minister has always chosen the date for his own benefit. I do not think that that is something James Callaghan could be accused of.

[Lord Dobbs]

I think it takes us back to 1974. I well remember Lord Callaghan, as he became. Indeed, he first introduced me to this House by giving me tea here. I owe him a great deal and I have the most profound respect for him. But I am surprised that the noble Lord should quote 1979 as being the pinnacle of constitutional principle. It was sheer self-interest based on the opinion polls, like it was for all other Prime Ministers.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I may be wrong, but my recollection is that Mr Callaghan went to the country because of a Motion of no confidence passed in the House of Commons. To describe him as choosing an election date seems, if I may say so, a little misplaced.

[Lord Dobbs]

The noble and learned Lord misunderstands me. The election date that he was going to choose was in the previous October, and that is where he got it wrong. In his own self-interest, he thought that he should soldier on, despite the evidence. Let me not be distracted, but I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord remembers 1978 and 1979 so fondly. I have to say that it is not an example that I would wish to follow.

Statistics will not resolve this issue. In the decision over whether it should be four years or five, I find myself, rather oddly, agreeing with the Deputy Prime Minister who, in a celebrated quote of his when asked if he thought 12 months here or there mattered very much, replied, “No, I do”. I think that he summed up the situation admirably. So let us have five years. I do not know if it is a matter of principle, as my noble friend Lord Marks says—I probably would not go that far—or of sheer practicality, but it is as close to the norm as four years. If any of the political parties find it somehow offensive, they are entirely at liberty to change it. All they have to do is to win an election, and because of this Bill they will have the immense benefit of knowing precisely when that election will be held.

Even taking the extreme position of supposing that every Parliament runs its full term, a premise that personally I doubt very much, surely extending the average length of a Parliament from the present four-and-a-half years to five does no great disservice to our constitution, and by enhancing the possibility of sensible, long-term government, it offers considerable benefits in compensation.

[Lord Desai]

My Lords, I have a brief point to make, but first I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that you cannot compare the frequency of Parliaments under a fixed-term arrangement with the frequency of Parliaments under a variable-term arrangement. They are not comparable things. I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, who expressed his distress that a Government would have only two years to legislate, not three, that if he had been in Parliament as long as I have, he would pray for fewer Bills to come from a Government rather than more. So I do not think that the quality of a Government is measured by the number of Bills they introduce; I think exactly the reverse.

I have one anxiety, which I shall explain. This Bill does not actually fix the term at five years, but at five years and two months. There is a distinct possibility that, again and again, a Prime Minister would be able to breach the standard convention that a term of five years is the limit. That is a fundamental part of our constitution. This Bill breaches that by allowing, in Clause 1(5), for an extra two months. We ought to take this very seriously. Prime Ministers can find good excuses to delay elections. As has been pointed out, if they see better a better chance two months hence, they will find a way of waiting. I do not care how long this goes on for—whether it goes on for 10-and-a-half years—but we should take the breach of a very fundamental political principle seriously. The advantage of my noble and learned friend’s amendment is that, even if a Prime Minister uses the two-month option, we would never breach the five-year rule. That is a telling argument in favour of the amendment.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, in 2005, together with my noble friend Lord Razzall, I was responsible for the Liberal Democrat general election campaign. The manifesto for that campaign contained a commitment to fixed-term Parliaments and specified terms of four years. Obviously I have changed my mind, and I should like to give the Committee three good reasons why I have done so. However, before I do that, I would point out to some noble Lords opposite that only last year they fought a general election on a manifesto promising that, if re-elected to government, the party would legislate for fixed-term Parliaments. The party has still not said how it would have legislated to “ensure” that there would be fixed-term Parliaments, and made no mention whatever of what the term of those fixed-term Parliaments would be. If the case for four years rather than five years was so absolutely clear cut, as suggested by some noble Lords opposite, I wonder why it was not included in the Labour Party manifesto of only last year.

The first reason why I think I have changed my mind is through simply looking at the balance of a five-year term for a Parliament and how much of that time might be spent governing or how much doing anything else. My noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames referred to the case for more pre-legislative scrutiny. I feel quite strongly that in the circumstances we have in this year in this Parliament, our legislation would be rather better if there was more draft legislation and more pre-legislative scrutiny, and I hope that when fixed terms of five years become the norm, there will be more of a case for such scrutiny in the first year of a Parliament, which would be good for the governance of the country.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Knowing that this Parliament is going to last for five years, surely there is time for pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. Why does the noble Lord not support that position in relation to this Bill?

[Lord Rennard]

In this Bill, we do not necessarily know whether we will have five-year terms or not. If the noble and learned Lord has his way, we will have four-year terms, not five years.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Am I given to understand that the reason for not giving this Bill any pre-legislative scrutiny is fear that it may not get through?

[Lord Rennard]

No, indeed. There are many things that require considerable scrutiny. But it seems to me that the actual principle of a fixed-term Parliament has been considered a number of times in a number of ways. I happen to think, for the reasons I am trying to advance, that five years is more logical. The first reason is that the first year of a Parliament would, more normally in the future, provide more time for draft legislation and pre-legislative scrutiny. As we all know, the last year of a Parliament tends to be given over to government campaigns rather than legislation. If we had only four years and the first year was dominated more by pre-legislative scrutiny and the last year dominated more by campaigning, only two years of government out of the four would be effective. That, as my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames said, is the problem with the US system. There, the period is four years, but everybody knows that in the first two years the President governs and then, after the mid-term elections, the second two years are all about campaigning for re-election.

There are two other points which are quite significant. They have not been made in this debate and some noble Lords opposite may wish to address them.

18:00

[Lord Wills]

Before the noble Lord finishes telling us why he changed his mind, perhaps I may point out that all the considerations in favour of a five-year term that he is now advancing, and the issues that he has brought into play, have been well known for many years—in fact, all the years during which he was in favour of a four-year fixed term. Can he tell us now precisely why he changed his mind?

[Lord Rennard]

The first reason is one about which the noble Lord, Lord Wills, should know a great deal. I pay great tribute to him as a genuine constitutional reformer. He was responsible in the previous Parliament and in the previous Government for changing significantly some of the rules on party political expenditure. Noble Lords opposite shared my concern throughout much of the 13 years and the three Parliaments of the previous Government about the lack of a level playing field in this country in party financing, which gave too much opportunity to extremely wealthy individuals to influence an election, particularly in constituencies, in the immediate run-up to it. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, introduced legislation in the previous Parliament which provided for control of that expenditure after four years and seven months of a Parliament. There would be no controls before that; they would apply only after four years, seven months. I opposed that legislation on the ground that it would work logically only if you had a five-year fixed-term Parliament. Noble Lords opposite had no answer to that point, but decided that four years, seven months was how it should be. So, now, our legislation to regulate party political expenditure is entirely dependent on there being a five-year fixed-term Parliament and on those controls coming in after four years and seven months through to the 60th month of the Parliament, and no other period.

[Lord Tyler]

I wonder whether my noble friend recalls that not only the noble Lord, Lord Wills, but all his political colleagues in another place promoted that legislation in terms precisely of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and the control of the expenditure of political parties. Why have the noble Lord and all his colleagues changed their minds? I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is back in his usual place. Perhaps he would like to explain why he has changed his mind, having teased my noble friend on this point.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords opposite will have an opportunity to explain their points. Perhaps I may briefly explain the third reason for my having decided that five years is better than four years. It is again a question of consistency. We agreed relatively recently and after lengthy debate—the longest that we have had in the time that I have been here—on the system for parliamentary boundary reviews. It has been established that there will be five-year reviews of constituency boundaries. It would be madness to say that one should redraw the constituency boundaries every five years but then not to have general elections every five years. To have a general election every four years but to redraw the boundaries every fifth year would put the two processes completely and quite unfairly out of sync. On that basis, I decided that five years rather than four was more logical and more democratic.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Would the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, care to comment on the fact that the first reason he gave for changing his mind applied before he espoused and promoted his manifesto for the election? Between his saying, “Vote Liberal Democrat; we’re in favour of four years” and reaching the conclusion that it should be five years, the people went and voted thinking that it was four. The noble Lord knew about the legislation that had been passed by the previous Government. I see a pattern however. I am grateful to him for his comment on five-yearly parliamentary boundary reviews and I shall go away and think about that very seriously.

[Lord Rennard]

I thank the noble Baroness, particularly for her latter point. In response to her first point, about how I should have known all this before 2005, I say very honestly that if all of us ignored all the evidence and all that we had learnt during the past six years, this place would be a poorer place and our legislation the poorer for it. I have reflected over the six years and have been convinced by many people that there should more pre-legislative scrutiny and more draft legislation. In 2005, I did not feel so strongly about that. Some of the more recent evidence points me in the direction of being strongly in favour of five-year, rather than four-year, fixed-term Parliaments.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, if we are to have a fixed-term Parliament, and I believe that we should not, we will do less damage if we fix it at four years rather than at five. I rather agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and with my noble friend Lord Wills that there is little advantage to be gained when we are considering how to reform our own constitution, which has grown out of our distinctive political and constitutional tradition, in looking over the way to see how such matters are organised in other countries. I do not think that when de Tocqueville engaged in such an exercise he was intellectually desperate; it was quite a fruitful exercise. It is worth noting that there is no advanced country with which we can sensibly be compared that fixes the terms of its Parliament for as long a period as five years. France has a fixed term of five years, but it has presidential government; Italy has a fixed term of five years, but Italy is a byword for governmental instability; Malta and Luxembourg have fixed five-year terms, but we cannot sensibly compare ourselves to them. I do not think that there is an advanced democracy abroad which sets the term of its Parliament at five years which should encourage us. If we look inwards at our own affairs, we should remind ourselves that the terms of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly are set at four years. It is therefore incumbent upon the Government to explain why they have taken such an eccentric view. It is all the more so because setting the term at five years, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, said, seems to be at odds with the principles that the Liberal Democrats have professed.

If we fix the term of Parliament, for whatever duration, we insulate Members of Parliament and, significantly, Ministers from public opinion. The longer the term, the worse that effect; the shorter the term, the more accountability and democratic engagement are brought into play. In the light of all the professions that the Deputy Prime Minister has made about the whole thrust of the constitutional reforms being brought forward by the coalition Government being to improve accountability and democratic engagement, it seems very odd that they should have decided on five years rather than four. It was Mr Mark Harper, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, when he was giving evidence to your Lordships Select Committee on the Constitution, who used the phrase, “it is an issue of judgment”. It should not perhaps surprise us very much that the judgment that the Government took was that which best suited the political interest of the coalition parties. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will be able to persuade us that the Government have some better reason.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I decided to intervene briefly in this debate because I felt that the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Armstrong at Second Reading had not been given voice and because he was not in his place. He now is in his place and I think that he could put them a lot better than I can. They have been referred to, but I should like to reinforce them.

Like other noble Lords, I do not like this Bill. It is an unnecessary Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, if the Government had wanted to commit themselves to a five-year Parliament, they could have done that under the old legislation. For that reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, this is not a Bill that binds the present Government so much as it does future Governments. There has been a lot of speculation in the debate about the Government’s motives for what they have done. I do not want to enter into that, because I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that what this House should do is decide on principle what is better for the country. On that issue, I come down in favour of the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Armstrong at Second Reading. I do so for a reason which I am sure will be dismissed as a Sir Humphrey-esque argument, as a bureaucrat’s argument, but I am not ashamed of that. Those of us who have seen government from the inside—the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, made this point, rather unexpectedly from my point of view, but from a political perspective—have reason to put to the House that too frequent elections are not good for the government of the country. Terrible things are done in the lead-up to a general election. Decisions are put off or are made in budgets which are designed to attract voters and are not in the interests of the country. For example, it will be in your Lordships’ memory that the Personal Care at Home Bill, which was introduced by the previous Government before the general election, was a blatant piece of electioneering. I made the point then that, in the economic conditions of the country, it was irresponsible to the highest degree. So to have elections more often than we need to have is not in the best interests of government.

Some people may say that I am against democracy, but that would be unfair. Of course there have to be elections. However, if there is a choice between every four years or five years, I would argue in favour of a five-year term.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Can the noble Lord comment on the point that all the experts who gave evidence, both in the House of Lords committee and in the House of Commons, came down in favour of four years? These were experts on our constitution, both in law and in practice.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

I should like to comment on that because the experts were, for the most part, either politicians or distinguished academics; they were not people who had seen government from the inside. That is why I am anxious to express this alternative point of view.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

First, a number of the politicians had been Ministers. Does the noble Lord regard that as government from the inside—or were they kept from the inside by Sir Humphrey on a regular basis? Secondly, on the basis of the argument he has made, if the noble Lord was given a choice between five and six years, I assume he would choose six years because there would be even less wearisome elections then.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

The noble and learned Lord tempts me.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Please be tempted.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

A balance has to be struck and I would strike it at five years.

On the previous day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, urged a referendum on the question of the day of the week that polling should take place. In his speech today, he did not urge a referendum on going to a four-year term, which is a greater constitutional change than a change in the day of the week for voting.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, it is precisely the same issue. This is about whether the election should be every four years or five years—I am happy to accept that there may be failings in the wording of the amendment—but the principle is exactly the same: it is to enable the electorate to choose between whether the term of a Parliament should be five years or four years.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

I take it that, if the amendment is passed, the noble Lord would also want a referendum on the question of whether a fixed-term Parliament should be for four or five years.

[Lord Grocott]

Yes.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

Thank you. That makes my point. It has been argued that the merit of a four-year term is that it gives the electorate more ability to hold the Government to account because they can do so more frequently. People like us and experts on government argue about what is good for the people and what the people want. If this was put to a referendum, I doubt whether there would be popular support for four-year rather than five-year terms. Elections are not very popular in this country; people do not like having their television dominated by politics for five or six weeks at a time. One of the arguments in favour of a four-year term is that we are giving the public what we think they ought to want, but I doubt they want it themselves.

18:15

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for introducing the amendment. It has given rise to considerable debate in all parts of the House and a number of important and interesting arguments have been put for and against. The duration of the parliamentary term proposed in the Bill has been discussed not only at Second Reading but in some of the earlier amendments we debated on the first day in Committee. It has also been debated in the other place where, it is worth noting, amendments similar to those tabled by the noble and learned Lord were debated and rejected.

On the debates in the other place, I should indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Wills—who, at one point, suggested that the business managers were ramming the Bill through—that the Bill was introduced on 22 July 2010; it had its Second Reading in the other place on 13 September; it had two and a half days in Committee in November and December; Report and Third Reading were on 18 January; and it was introduced into this House on 19 January. We are now on the second day in Committee on 21 March and, with the best will in the world, we would be unlikely to reach Third Reading of the Bill before the Easter Recess. That does not sound like ramming a Bill through. I shall come later to the point the noble Lord made about the partisan nature of the Bill, which I strongly reject.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, suggested that I had indicated that the issue of four or five years was one of high principle, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for quoting what I did say. I indicated that I did not believe there was a right or wrong answer. I think that there is a matter of important principle in terms of a general constitutional reform package. I have always strongly believed in the argument for a fixed-term Parliament, and I thought that the Labour Party supported that argument as well at the last general election.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, went on to say that he considered this a matter of high principle, although many of us are waiting to hear exactly what that principle is. I did not discern it in any of his remarks. He put forward arguments on the basis of practicality and why he felt four years was better than five. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, cited a number of academics and politicians who had given evidence to that effect as well. However, my noble friend Lord Rennard quite properly pointed out that the legislation on candidate expenses which the noble Lord, Lord Wills, took through the other place under the previous Government—which, I assume, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was responsible for in this House—presumed that there would be a five-year Parliament. Indeed, that legislation would have been otiose if there was a four-year Parliament. No doubt we could amend that legislation but it is an insight to what the Labour Party was thinking at the time. Therefore, to elevate this to a matter of high principle is overegging the cake.

However, it is a matter of principle that the constitutional reform that the Government are working hard to achieve should have a framework for strong and stable government that can deliver results to the electorate. This Bill and a fixed five-year term would help to ensure that.

Perhaps I can now address some of the issues and explain why a five-year term would be beneficial. The current constitutional position is that any Government who retain the confidence of the other House may, if they wish, stay in office for a full five-year term. We should not kid ourselves that curtailing the length of time would be a significant change beyond simply the important change to fixed terms. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the Bill made provision for five years and two months, that would be the case only if an order was brought forward in unusual circumstances—for example, if there was an outbreak of foot and mouth—and it would require a resolution of both Houses of Parliament to be implemented. Amendments will be introduced later—this evening, I hope—which will require the Prime Minister to give an explanation to both Houses as to why he or she was doing this. In fact, a Parliament need not be dissolved until five years after it is called but it is certainly possible under our existing constitutional arrangements to go beyond the five years. Under the Bill, unless there is the exceptional circumstance to which I referred, it would not be possible to go beyond five years. I understand the noble Lord’s concern but hope that he, on listening to the later debate when this comes up, will be reassured on that point.

I take the stricture of my noble friend Lord Dobbs about the dangers of trading figures. It is the case that most Parliaments since the Second World War, some 10 out of 17, have lasted at least four years. Three of the last five have lasted almost five years. Some have pointed to examples of Parliaments that have lasted closer to four rather than five, making the argument that four is somehow the norm and five is only for Governments who are clinging on to power. Yet, as was well put by my noble friend Lord Marks, those who point to the examples where the fifth year has been, if one wished to use the term, a lame duck almost make the point. These arose because the Prime Minister of the day looked at the runes, did the calculation and estimated that it would not be worth going to the electorate because he was probably not going to win. The very nature of the Government being in that position means that they are almost inevitably limping into their fifth year. That is a different situation from Governments knowing that there is a five-year fixed term and having to plan accordingly.

The noble and learned Lord also mentioned what Mr Asquith said back in February 1911. We could have a legitimate debate on what Mr Asquith was actually saying. He is quoted in the Official Report as saying that reducing the Parliament from seven years, as it previously was, to five would,

“probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working term of four years”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/1911; col. 1749.]

He clearly did not say that the term would be for four years but that the practical legislative working term would be for four years. That is an important point and one I will pick up later in light of the comments made at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. As I said, the fact that an election is called before the end of the fifth year of a term has often been cited as the Prime Minister of the day seeking to give his or her party a political advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Martin, gave examples where a Prime Minister has exercised that power and it has not come off. It is fair to say that those Prime Ministers were mightily surprised and upset by that. They could not have foreseen it: it was their wrong judgment. That cannot get away from the fact that that is what they were trying to do. My noble friend Lord Dobbs made it clear from his inside track that that is precisely what Prime Ministers try to do in those circumstances.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, said—although I accept that he indicated his objection to fixed-term Parliaments as a whole—that there are merits, if you are having fixed-term Parliaments, to a term of five rather than four years. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, made the same point today. I remind the House what the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said:

“If legislation were to set a fixed term of, let us say, four years, that period would be reduced to more like three years. That would not leave enough room for sensible policy-making and good parliamentary debate before the imminence of the forthcoming election began to cast its distorting shadow. So I hope that, if this Bill becomes law, the fixed term will be five years, as is proposed in the Bill, and not some shorter term”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 971.]

That echoes the point made by Mr Asquith about what would practicably be the working life of the Parliament. Many commentators—politicians and the public—would argue that Governments can be too short term in their planning and decision-making, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. Many major decisions and investments often take a significant time for their consequences to appear. We want—I hope there is a consensus in the country that people also want—to encourage future Governments to take that longer-term view rather than always to be looking for the short-term advantage, be that from being able to pick the date of the election or shortening the length of the Parliament.

[Lord Wills]

The noble and learned Lord said earlier that he was not quite sure what the high principles were that are at stake here. He has just set out one of them—the interest of stability and good government. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, also made the case for this. Against that has to be traded the principle of accountability, which has informed a lot of the remarks on this side of the House. The noble and learned Lord has just referred to what the British public might want. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, also referred to this. Why precisely have the Government taken so few steps to consult the British public on this? There is no Green Paper or White Paper as far as I am aware, and no going out to the country to ask the British people how they think these respective principles of accountability and stability should be weighed in the Bill. Why have the Government not done this?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I take seriously the issue that somehow democratic accountability is being reduced. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made the point in speaking to his amendment on the first day of Committee—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, also expressed this view—that if we had had fixed-term, five-year Parliaments there would have been a reduced number of elections. I cannot accept that that automatically follows. Taking up the point of democratic accountability, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, cannot ignore the possibility—or, more, the probability—that there would have been Parliaments that did not run their full term of five years. Perhaps February 1974 would have been an example, or October 1974, or the 1951 election.

My noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames also indicated that it is important to put the ducks—as they were described by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—in perspective. It is almost inevitable that during the past 65 years some Parliaments would not run their full course. You cannot say that every Parliament would automatically run the five years. Indeed, that is why we have the provisions in Clause 2 of the Bill.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

The Minister seems to be making some of the points that I know colleagues have been anxious about. Governments and Parliament have to respond to what is going on in the outside world and with the electorate, so it is difficult to be absolutely precise in legislation as to when things should happen and be rigid about that. That is the objection of many people to the Bill. In a constitution which has evolved and which develops, the Government are trying to bring absolute certainty, when democracy does not bring certainty and should not be expected to. That is why we are having such interesting times in the Middle East at the moment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Baroness’s final point is a huge leap. As I explained at Second Reading—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington—there is a spectrum between the complete flexibility that you have under the present system, which is subject to a maximum term, and the system in, I think, Norway, where there are quite rigid terms in which there is no way out if anything happens. There was a consensus that if we moved to fixed-term Parliaments, as I believe is right and as is proposed by the Bill, there should nevertheless be a mechanism to call an early election if certain circumstances arose. There was some degree of consensus on that. When we come to Clause 2, we will debate those mechanisms. I merely observe that the Constitution Committee thought that the mechanisms were fit for purpose in terms of what we are dealing with.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

We have heard in this debate references to all former Prime Ministers using their judgment in their own party-political interests and that of their own futures. How do I explain to people outside that the present Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, arriving on the figure of five years, were not doing the same thing?

18:30

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think that one can readily do so, because five years was what this Parliament was elected for. If this legislation gets through, the Prime Minister will not be able to substitute another date or another judgment, unless there are other issues. He has put that date so far away that he cannot be accused of using it—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Well, he can be accused, because noble Lords opposite will accuse him. But any reasonable person would see that, in setting the basis for a fixed-term Parliament, one could not take account five years out of the possible political vicissitudes, waves and currents in the intervening five years. If this Bill becomes law, the Prime Minister will be locked in, as will any other Prime Minister in future.

I was going to make this point later, but this is an opportune time to make it. I thought that a large part of the noble and learned Lord’s argument was that this measure is the glue that holds the coalition together. However, unless I am mistaken—and I stand to be corrected if I am—the terms of his amendment would still leave standing the election to take place on 7 May 2015. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I want to correct that, because it is certainly not my intention, which is to have four years, four years, four years and so on. It is certainly not to have five years and then four years. There may be an issue with the drafting, but this is intended to set four years as the term, so be under no illusion.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful for that clarification because I had interpreted his amendment as leaving 7 May 2015 to stand and that thereafter there would be four years. I am grateful to hear the noble and learned Lord say that that was not the intention, because that was going to be the answer that I gave to my noble friend Lord Cormack. I accept that it may well be an error in the drafting.

The point that I would make is that this Parliament was elected for a maximum of five years, so in moving to a fixed-term Parliament regime we are embodying that in the Bill—and then thereafter also to have five years. That is the point that I make to the noble Lord, Lord Butler. Of course it is right and it goes without saying that no Parliament can bind its successor. The noble Lord and others say that there is no need for this legislation, but what we are seeking to do is to have fixed-term Parliaments on into the future. Other Parliaments can repeal that, but obviously it would take primary legislation to repeal a system of fixed-term Parliaments. I would very much hope that, having established the principle of fixed-term Parliaments, in the same way as we have fixed terms for devolved Assemblies, for local government and for the European Parliament, fixed terms would become the norm.

I take the point made by my noble friends Lord Marks and Lord Rennard with regard to pre-legislative scrutiny. I have been at the receiving end of many complaints about the lack of such scrutiny. There is an issue about the first year of a Government, because when they come into office they want to get on and start dealing with things. One can readily imagine the criticism that would come from the Opposition if a Government were not doing anything. However, there has been a move over the years to having more pre-legislative scrutiny, which has the effect of increasing the workload on both Houses. It is not fanciful to imagine that, following the election in 2015, a Government of whatever colour will not be able to commence their first Session of legislation with more substantive Bills until there has been a considerable amount of pre-legislative scrutiny. So we are talking about the beginning of 2016 as the time when some key pieces of legislation are introduced, having properly been looked at beforehand.

The final year, whether the term is four years or five years, is always going to be one when those seeking re-election look to their constituencies. That would reduce by some way the effective time for legislation by a Government. My noble friend Lord Norton made the point in one of our debates on the first day in Committee that Governments might run out of steam in the fifth year. Allowing for pre-legislative scrutiny and knowing that there will be five years allows for the legislative programme to be planned more effectively. The fifth year, particularly if it is a full year, not one starting at the end of November with a wash-up in the middle of March, would then be used much more effectively.

I defer to the huge experience of the noble Lord, Lord Martin, as he was Speaker of the other place and has an understanding of the parliamentary process. However, the final year, be it the fifth or the fourth year, would inevitably be one when the shadow of the coming election loomed. I also point out that my understanding is—although I may be corrected—that now Thursday debates in the other place are very often chosen by a Back-Bench Committee and that the Government have given power to the Back-Bench Committee to determine the subject matter for debate. I would be interested to know how many Divisions there have been on Thursdays in the first Session of a Parliament, as the noble Lord made the point about how few there were in the fifth Session. That is another measure that this Government have taken to put more power in the hands of Parliament rather than the Executive.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

I cannot speak for what is going on in the other place at the moment. However, if my memory serves me correctly, the Minister followed Jo Grimond into the House of Commons in 1983, so he will appreciate as a former Scottish Member that on a Thursday there were votes more often than not, because we had to take the sleeper home. The other thing is that the Minister has had more experience of four-year Parliaments than five-year ones. In the last Session of a five-year Parliament, there were no votes whatever on the Floor of the House of Commons on a Thursday. That is what happened in the last Session of Parliament before the general election—there were no votes at all. The Minister has never had the experience of when that was the case.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I agree that it was never my experience. One thing that I am glad that I do not have responsibility for is how Parliament under the last Government was arranged in its final year. The point that I was making was that I believe that, be the term four or five years, the final year will be taken forward under the looming election. If one goes to four years and one has pre-legislative scrutiny, that cuts down the effective time for the Government to introduce their measures, let alone for their measures to be judged.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord was not in the Chamber for the whole debate. He knows that I normally give way. Perhaps I can just—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The Minister is having difficulty finding his place. I am only trying to help him.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord is always trying to help. I cannot remember who it was in the last debate—it may have been my noble friend Lord Brooke—who said that one should always beware of the help that comes from certain quarters.

One treats with caution foreign comparisons because, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, there are different circumstances. However, noble Lords mentioned the fact that there are fixed terms of four years in the United States. I happened to note, reading a copy of the Economist from earlier this month, some comment that for the Republican Party people have not yet been clearly identified as taking part in the primaries. That is just two years and two months since the inauguration of President Obama. It is in order for a Government who receive a mandate to be able to fulfil their programme over a planned period and I believe that five years is more likely to assist that than four years.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

That was not very convincing.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will get an opportunity in future to intervene. I am sure that he will make a speech on another set of amendments, to which I shall be more than happy to reply.

At the moment, we have a system that allows up to a maximum of five years. In fact, three of the past five Parliaments have gone for five years. To remove that possibility requires a more compelling argument than we have heard. To move for four years would leave the effective working life of a Parliament and a Government sufficiently curtailed that they would not be able to implement their manifesto provisions. Therefore, I ask the House to support the idea of a five-year fixed term and ask the noble and learned Lord in those circumstances to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I will of course withdraw my amendment at the end of the debate because the purpose of debate at this stage was in order to probe and examine the arguments. The noble and learned Lord’s speech was well delivered but disappointing because it ultimately did not address the central argument being put against him: that the effect is to change our constitution, where there is a five-year maximum but the norm is around four years, to one where the norm becomes five years save in exceptional circumstances.

What everyone around the House was asking him was: why are you making this change if we have to make the judgment on what is in the best interests of good governance in this country? The Minister never answered that question at all but it is at the heart of the debate. This is not a party-political point. The reason that the noble and learned Lord cannot answer the question is that good old Mr Laws, in order to make it clear that the record should not be perverted in any way, has explained why it is five years. I do not know why the noble and learned Lord, who is an honourable man, is weaving and dodging on this. Just say, “They wouldn’t do a deal with us unless we agreed five years”. Do not try and make it something that it is not.

One of the other things that emerged so strongly from this very powerful debate was the sense that the more one talked about it, the more this House felt uneasy about being locked into this straitjacket that the Bill brings. I am in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, in the sense that I can see it to be appropriate that Parliament should in some way endorse what the Prime Minister has decided about an election. However, the Government are saying, “You have to choose between five years and four years”. I detected a real sense of unease around the House on this, but the Government are putting it that we have got to make this choice. Therefore, looking at the arguments, let us see which the best choice is. The noble and learned Lord himself said what the reason is that the Government are doing this.

Now, I cannot find my note. That would give my noble friend Lord Foulkes an opportunity to ask me a question, but I do not think that he wants to ask me any questions. I am sorry about that.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My noble and learned friend is aware that I have just spent the last year of a four-year term in the Scottish Parliament. We happen to have been legislating right up to the very last day of that Parliament. There has been none of the kind of lassitude, or the feeling that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, described as an end-of-term—what word I am I looking for?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Fatigue.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

There has been none of that fatigue in that Parliament, which has been legislating right up to the wire, and no lame dog—

[Noble Lords]

Lame duck!

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Yes, I mean lame duck; I knew I would get it eventually. I can tell my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer that one of the architects of the four-year fixed-term Parliament in Scotland was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

How grateful I am for all that. I know that the Minister will have listened to it all.

To go back to my point, the noble and learned Lord is making us choose between five and four years, but the arguments that his Government put forward are all on the accountability side. That is what makes the case being advanced so absurd. Again, in the evidence that the Deputy Prime Minister gave to the examination of the Bill, he said in justifying it that,

“it is an unambiguous judgment on our part that reducing the power of the executive, seeking to boost the power of the legislature, making the legislatures more accountable to people ... collectively introduces the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater control over politicians”

How could he have been trying to justify the Bill as giving more accountability in a process that left the electorate with less ability to get rid of Governments, because there would be fewer general elections? What is so odd about the Government’s position is that they rely upon accountability and then propose something that produces less of it.

18:45

We heard a number of very impressive speeches. I particularly mention the speech that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, made. He went through the evidence and, with respect to everyone else, demolished the case in favour of a norm of five years. By my calculations there were five speeches, apart from that of the Minister, in favour of five years. I include in them that of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who I detected was in fact in favour of four years but said it should be five years for the first term. I respectfully suggest that we should not listen to his extremely well put siren song. To paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, he was saying that we will just have to succumb to this awful argument that is being advanced. He is not nodding but I feel a sense coming across the Room on that. Do not be persuaded by that argument; if five years is wrong for the future, it is certainly wrong for the present.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, described it as a point of principle. I remind noble Lords that the point he referred to was not on whether we should have fixed terms but on whether they should be of five years. To quote David Laws again, he says that Andrew Stunell,

“mentioned that our own policy was for four-year… Parliaments. … Osborne made the point that five-year parliaments were better … We made no objection to this”—

a point of principle lost in a second. What will their point of principle be tomorrow on it? I would not rely heavily on it.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

Is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, not prepared to concede that it may just be that, in spite of the frivolous tones in which he dismisses the arguments, my right honourable friend Mr Osborne may just have been right?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

He might have been, but I would not rely on anybody whose point of principle—this one was adopted for years by the Liberal Democrats—evaporates in the course of one sentence in a negotiation. Say that it is a compromise or a deal done to benefit the country, but do not say that it is a point of principle which switched in the course of negotiations. That is the weakness of the argument, in my respectful submission, that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, was making.

The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, made an impressive speech. I have never heard statistics more blatantly abused than by him. Perhaps I might draw attention to two particular points. First, he chose his starting point as October 1974 to ignore the February to October 1974 point, as he explained. Secondly, the difficulty with the fact that there was one election where the date was forced upon the Prime Minister by a Motion of no confidence was simply obliterated from his mind completely, so that he focused only on 1978. What he said was accurate in that, obviously, in choosing the date that they have for elections Prime Ministers are motivated by the chances of winning. That is the basic reason why one has a fixed-term Parliament but it does not really assist in determining between four and five years.

The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, was the most admirable. I say that genuinely, having worked with him. He was the Cabinet Secretary in 1997 when we took power and, having seen the talent of the noble Lord, I can genuinely understand how he would find the elected politicians quite wearisome to start with, particularly when they come into power with no experience of any sort of government. If I were him, I would have the least often elections as possible but, as people have made the point, this debate is just as much about accountability as about stable government. The reason that the Bill is being brought forward—this is the Government’s defence—is because the public are fed up with the politicians and want more accountability and more mechanisms to have control over them. The idea that you do that by extending the length of a Parliament, which is the effect of this, seems, with the greatest respect, to be nonsense. Nothing could be better designed to reduce confidence in government than the disingenuous explanations that have been put forward for the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill in the course of this debate. I will withdraw my amendment, but it will be back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, since he had a go at me, can he quote one piece of evidence that the public generally want four-year elections?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Can the noble Lord quote one bit of evidence in favour of five years? I suspect that the public have no view on whether it should be four years or five; it is for us to judge.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I shall answer on the noble and learned Lord’s behalf. The evidence given to the Power commission was clearly in favour of more elections rather than fewer, not more than four years apart.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley)]

My Lords, I remind you that the amendment is being withdrawn.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Amendments 12 and 13 not moved.

Amendment 14

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

14: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert “except if an early parliamentary general election has occurred under section 2”

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, the effect of my amendment would be to remove the provision for “resetting the clock”, as the phrase goes. If the amendment were incorporated into the Bill, and were there to be an early general election under either of the two provisions in Clause 2, that early general election would not be followed by a new full fixed term of the subsequent Parliament. Only the balance of the term left over from the previous Parliament would be served by the new Parliament, and a general election would take place at the end of five years—or, if at Report we adopt a four-year fixed term, at the end of four years—as established before the early general election took place.

The provision for resetting the clock is an important element in the Bill and we should have the opportunity to think about it in Committee. I understand that in Sweden, if an early general election is called, the electoral cycle none the less remains unaltered; they have the provision that I am proposing in the Bill. Of course, Parliament legislated that there should be four-year fixed terms for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. That legislation provides for the possibility of an exceptional early election but does not provide that the clock is reset in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and one might say that sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

If we are to have fixed-term Parliaments, why do we not have genuine fixed terms? That would enable the benefit of the discipline of fixed terms to be fully experienced and everyone would know where they stood. It would remove the incentive for a Government to contrive an early general election by, for example, engineering a vote of no confidence in themselves. The requirement would be less significant if in due course the House approves one of the amendments that provides that only the Leader of the Opposition may table a Motion of no confidence, but without that amendment we must recognise that there is a possibility, and it could be an attractive one, for the Government to engineer such a Motion in order to achieve an early general election. It would discourage the parties from colluding to take advantage of the two-thirds provision for an early general election, and would lead to the benefits of full five-year terms being more surely secured, as no doubt the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster and Lord Butler of Brockwell, would wish. It would keep the rhythm of the boundary reviews in sync with the electoral cycle, the importance of which the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, stressed in our previous debate.

When Mr Harper, the Minister, gave evidence to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, he was rather equivocal on this point—he simply said that it was a judgment issue whether or not the provision for resetting the clock should be built into the legislation. He said,

“on balance we have taken the view that resetting the clock is the right one”—

that is, the right decision. Once again, as with the issue of judgment as to whether the fixed term should be for four years or five, the coalition’s judgments just happen to favour its own interests in staying in office. Again, I ask the Minister whether the Government have any better reason for having incorporated the provision for resetting the clock in the event of an exceptional early general election.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for the amendment. I was initially puzzled about its effect, which would be that it would provide that the next scheduled election was not held following an early general election under Clause 2. This gives me an opportunity to say something about subsections (3) and (4), as he has indicated that with this amendment he is seeking to ensure that the clock is not reset. His closing remarks indicated that this is a matter not of high principle but of judgment.

Subsections (3) and (4) of the clause provide that, where an early election occurs, the polling date for the next election will be the first Thursday in May in the fifth year of Parliament, unless the early election falls on a date before the first Thursday in May, in which case the length of the ensuing Parliament will be calculated as four years from the next first Thursday in May. That will deliver certainty as to when the next election will be, but—this is a crucial point—it also gives the incoming Government as close to a five-year term as possible. It eliminates the need for the electorate to return to the polls in quick succession, as the clock is effectively reset.

The Constitution Committee examined this aspect of the Bill. In its report it concluded that if there is an early general election, a Government elected at that poll should have a full term, or as near a full term as possible, in which to develop their policies and take their legislative programme through Parliament.

Some noble Lords may nevertheless have the concerns expressed by the noble Lord about the term of the Parliament after an early election. I know that some consider that it would be preferable for an early election not to affect the date of the ordinarily scheduled election, but that could well mean that a Parliament was given only a relatively short period of time. It may be that a Government would be elected with a substantial majority, and it would be difficult to explain to an electorate in these circumstances why it would be necessary to return so quickly when it might appear that a Government had been elected relatively recently with a mandate. They might be surprised and somewhat confused by that approach.

Not to allow an incoming Government to serve a full term would lead to a system with potentially two types of Government: those entitled to a full term to implement their policies, and those who would have to make do with the time left to them before the next scheduled election. That could also alter the nature of the elections themselves. Why should the mandate provided at one election be any different from the mandate provided at another?

I note the points made about the devolved Administrations in both Scotland and Wales. There is a difference; I think that the Northern Ireland Assembly is much more akin to what is proposed in the Bill. It is also the case that, given the proportional systems that are in place for elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, it is unlikely that you are going to get a Government elected with a large single-party mandate. If a party had not been elected with such a mandate, people would not think it so odd that it did not have a full term.

We gave consideration to this matter, but the balance comes down in favour of resetting the clock. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment. It has been an opportunity for us to air this important aspect of the Bill. I hope that he will agree that there is merit in resetting the clock and, on that basis, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the Government’s case slightly more fully than the debate at Second Reading gave him the opportunity to do. After all the excitement of the previous debate, the House has not been particularly zestful about embarking on an exhaustive debate on this topic, but this provision in the Bill is significant and it is right that the House has received the explanation that the Minister has given.

If my amendments were incorporated, however, they would provide greater certainty. The Minister seemed to suggest that there would be greater certainty if we had a resetting of the clock. There would be greater certainty about the duration of a Parliament if we did not have that provision, but I do not want to quibble. I also accept his point about proportional representation making a difference. I am grateful to him for correcting my appreciation of the position in Northern Ireland.

I agree that, on balance, it is better to include the provision to reset the clock. One could make a reasonable case for not including that provision, or for not applying it, if the early general election were to occur in the first half of a fixed term of Parliament. It might be accepted that, if there was more than half of the fixed term still to go, it would be sufficient and the benefits of discouraging early elections would be felt. However, I certainly agree that if there were an early general election later in the Parliament, it would not make sense not to start a new fixed term. If we were to elect a new Government, they would need a decent span of time in which to govern. I also do not think that the need to have two general elections in rapid succession would be well received by voters if this was the only reason why there had to be another election. I am glad that we have been able to look at this issue and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

19:00

Amendment 14A

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

14A: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert “unless this date coincides with an election to a reformed House of Lords”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this amendment would mean that an election to the other place could not take place on the same day as an election to this House. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place suggested that the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill should be discussed with the draft Bill on reforming the House of Lords so that the two fundamental constitutional issues could be considered alongside each other. Indeed, that somewhat wise committee noted:

“Elections to a reformed House of Lords may well prove a further complicating element”.

Let us pause for a moment to see what considerations and complications might arise. There are two assumptions. The first is that the elections to the other place and to your Lordships’ reformed House would take place on the same day. If that is the correct assumption, I assume that the elections to this House would also be for the same five-year fixed term—if that, rather than a term of four years, is accepted. One has to assume that the term would be shortened should an election be triggered in the other House. In the mean time, what should happen? Will Members of this House be able to resign, for example, to fight a seat in the Commons? Maybe they will be able to resign from this House, having been elected here, for any other reasons via—presumably—the equivalent of the Chiltern Hundreds. If so, what if the following by-elections to this House changed the composition of this House so that the Government in the Commons could no longer get their programme through this House but were unable to call an election in the other place because that is not allowed for in this Bill?

The second assumption is that elections to the two Houses would take place on different days. It is interesting then to ask the question: for how long would Members elected to this House sit and would that be for a fixed term, regardless of what elections were to take place in the other place? What will be the gap between the general elections in which people are elected to the two Houses? On the assumption that they are held on different days, halfway through a Commons parliamentary term your Lordships’ House could change hands so that there was stalemate, but with the upper House perhaps claiming the legitimacy of a fresh mandate and—if elected by proportional representation—a more representative mandate. If this House claimed a fresh mandate in light of current affairs, where would that leave the Commons—unable to challenge it or to refresh itself by virtue of a new election and mandate? Could the equivalent of a no-confidence vote in this House then trigger a response in the other House, to enable it to call an election?

It is worth recalling that our Select Committee on the Constitution noted that, in regard to the triggering of an early general election for the Commons, the Bill should contain a form of safety valve in case the Government lost,

“the confidence of the Commons or where a political or economic crisis … affected the country”.

However, either of those, should they happen, might be felt most quickly in your Lordships’ House—should an election here come swiftly after, or even during, such a crisis—and change its composition so that this House felt it more truly reflected the current views of voters. The new elected House might then almost make things ungovernable if it felt that it had to restrain the Commons from action that the electorate had demonstrated would displease it.

These are exactly the sort of questions that will in due course be debated with regard to the plans for this Chamber. However, it seems odd that we will entrench the date for the elections to one part of Parliament without any reference to elections to the other part. Perhaps, therefore, at the very least, the Minister will simply clarify whether the first tranche of the elections to this place is also envisaged for 7 May 2015, and the next tranche for May 2020. If not, what are the ideas about the harmony of the two Chambers, given the provisions of the Bill? I beg to move.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has done us a real favour in introducing her amendment. It is a mischievous one, as she knows, but she has brought before us a subject that may come again. Personally, I hope it does not. As one who believes strongly in the virtue and value of a non-elected second Chamber, I hope that this Chamber will not be abolished and replaced by another. The noble Baroness has indicated the sort of things that could happen if there were two elected Chambers. There is the challenge over which is the more legitimate, and the challenge as to whether you can possibly—even though you may wish to—retain the supremacy of the other place if a second Chamber here is elected. Many of us believe that you cannot. Many of us believe that it is far simpler, better and less ambiguous to have one mandate held by one House, rather than a mandate divided between two.

It will be interesting to see whether my noble and learned friend the Minister can give us some of the answers that the noble Baroness sought. He ought to reflect, as should others in government, on the wise words of Ernest Bevin, one of the greatest Foreign Secretaries that our country has had in the past century. Talking of some political problem, he said:

“If you open that Pandora’s box, you never know what Trojan horses will jump out”.

I urge the wisdom of those words on my noble and learned friend before he replies.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack: we are grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayter for raising these issues. It is important to emphasise that the Government have put forward these proposals for constitutional reform so that they are all part of a package. The three parts of the package are the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and the House of Lords Reform Bill. It is important for the noble and learned Lord to give at least some answers to what my noble friend Lady Hayter has said, but there is a more important underlying point. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said to my noble friend Lord Rooker, “Oh, you can’t say that, because we voted for the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill on the basis that it is a five-year fixed term”. I very much hope that we will not hear any more of that sort of talk from the Government, because they were given the opportunity to put the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill together—

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I am not going to give way, if you do not mind. As I say, the Government were given the opportunity to put these things together but they did not take it. It seems to me that the consequence of not taking that opportunity is that when Parliament debates these issues again on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill or on Lords reform, we will not regard ourselves as bound by the previous decisions that have been made—for example, we might conclude that four years was better than five for a fixed-term Parliament—because the Government explicitly refused the opportunity to put these constitutional reforms together despite the fact that they were urged to do so not just by the Opposition but by the cross-party constitutional committees in both Houses of Parliament.

I shall be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord’s view on how we deal with possible inconsistencies between one of the Government’s constitutional reform package Bills and another. Presumably, that is done by amending the later Bill when we see what the right answer is. I now give way to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.

[Lord Rennard]

I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is being consistent in his arguments. There seemed to be a lot of criticism of the fact that in previous legislation two items were put together—the voting referendum and the constituency boundaries. Now he is suggesting that the third item—this Bill—and House of Lords reform should all be put in the same package. I do not understand his argument. I was simply suggesting that when we have decided things we should try to be consistent about them.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

As regards the AV referendum and the parliamentary boundaries, we saw what was proposed in relation to both of those. The issue was whether they both needed to be included in one Bill. We knew what the proposals were.

19:15

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for this interesting amendment, which has given rise to a number of interesting questions. As the Committee well knows, a cross-party committee has been considering reform of this House and the Government intend to publish a draft Bill shortly. I could not possibly comment on what will be in that draft Bill as it will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. We hope that that will be done by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I am sure that some of the important issues which the noble Baroness raised will be brought before that Joint Committee. My noble friend the Leader of the House answered questions on some of the issues she raised regarding the relative standing of both Houses last week, if not the week before. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to deal with them in the context of this Bill.

[Lord Bach]

The noble and learned Lord says that that draft Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. That is great to hear, but why was that not the case with this Bill?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we have gone down that path many times and have indicated that we intended this should be a first-term Bill. I have made it very clear on a number of occasions when this has been raised that we believed it was important that at a very early point in this Parliament we should establish that it would run to a particular fixed date, and that we wanted to ensure the principle of fixed-term Parliaments. However, no one can say that there has not been ample opportunity, in the length of time which I described in responding to an earlier amendment, for both Houses to have plenty of opportunity to look at a relatively short Bill.

[Lord Cormack]

My noble and learned friend talked about the scrutiny committee of both Houses. Can he give an absolute assurance that on that committee there will be Members who do not believe in a fully or partially elected House so that it can reflect the wide range of opinions in both Houses of Parliament?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am in no way trying to dismiss the suggestion that my noble friend makes. I am not in a position to indicate how that committee will be established. No doubt there will be nomination procedures from both Houses. I suspect that it would be rather odd if a contrary view or two was not expressed on it, but I am not in a position to indicate that ahead of the Bill being published. I assure the Committee that the timings of elections to the reformed second Chamber has been considered carefully by the Government and the proposals will be in the draft Bill.

I certainly take my noble friend’s point that, having spent most of the time on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill listening to the Opposition saying that the Bill should be split, it is somewhat intriguing then to be told that not only should it be split but that two other Bills should be added on to it. I do not think that the experience of the CRAG Bill in the previous Parliament, where numerous constitutional principles were put together under the one heading of a constitutional reform Bill, was necessarily the most satisfactory experience.

The noble Baroness mentioned entrenching the election date for one House while the other was pending. At least it will be known when this Bill has got on to the statute book what Parliament has agreed with regard to a fixed-term election. If this Bill had not come forward and we did not have fixed-term Parliaments, an election to the other place could have happened at any time. The potential for some of the confusion and concerns to which the noble Baroness referred would have been multiplied many times over if it was proposed that this House should have a fixed term while the other place could have elections as and when the Prime Minister of the day thought best to call them. Therefore, when the Joint Committee of both Houses considers the draft Bill, it will do so in the knowledge of what Parliament has passed in the context of fixed-term Parliaments. This Bill deals with dates of the general election to the other place. These should be set before we consider the dates of elections to the reformed second Chamber. There will be ample opportunity to discuss elections to this Chamber when the Bill is published in draft form and, I suspect, plenty of further opportunities to discuss it when the reality of the Bill comes before the other place and your Lordships' House. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank the Minister and the other speakers for their contributions. The Minister said that it was an interesting amendment, rather like the Chinese proverb, “May you live in interesting times”. I am not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, calling it mischievous. It was seriously meant because it is about a package of reforms, as my noble and learned friend said. I do not think that means putting them in one Bill but rather having a real idea of where we are taking our constitution before we tackle any one bit of it, so that we see it in the round. Nevertheless, given the comments that have been made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14A withdrawn.

Amendment 15

Moved by

[Lord Grocott]

15: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) Each five-year parliament shall include a minimum of five parliamentary sessions.”

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I am very conscious of the fact that we probably have only about 10 minutes before we ought to break for dinner. These things fall as they do, but I hope that I may be presumptuous enough to suggest that this is an important amendment. It is a simple one and says straightforwardly that if we are to go down the road of fixed-term Parliaments over five years—I am opposed to that—there is a very strong case indeed for saying that there should be annual Sessions of Parliament, and that it should not be within the remit of government, having fixed the Parliament, then to be allowed absolute flexibility over the length of Sessions.

I perhaps would not have thought it necessary to put this amendment down and in effect legislate for the Session of a Parliament were it not for the very bad experience of the current practice whereby, to my amazement, last September the Government announced that the first Session of this Parliament would last for two years. So far as I know, this was done without any consultation, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, can correct me on that. That was an extraordinary unilateral decision to make. The only defences of it that I have heard are, “This is the first Session, so we have a lot to do”, or the rather feeble defence that it is only five months longer than the first Sessions of Parliament have often been in the past. Speaking as a former Chief Whip, I can say only that if you had said to me, “It is only five months”, five months longer for a Session of Parliament for any Government is absolute gold dust. It is a discipline on Governments who are putting in their legislative programme to do that within a 12-month period. I remind the House of the current situation before I explain why it is essential, when faced with this fixed-term Parliament, that we legislate to ensure that Sessions are at least annual.

At present, Governments normally decide around September each year—perhaps a little earlier—the date of the Queen’s Speech. I do not know the details of the negotiations between No. 10 and the palace, but I know, as the Committee knows, that we all understand that normally there will be a Queen’s Speech in November each year. Occasionally, it has drifted into December. That is excepting the Queen’s Speeches that come after general elections, which can come at any time—although they cannot come at any time if the Bill becomes an Act. We know that Governments work within a parameter, which is usually some time in November. There is the usual argy-bargy whereby if a Queen’s Speech comes too early, it is because the Government do not have enough legislation and are running out of steam; or if the Queen’s Speech comes too late it is because the Government have lost control of their legislative programme. However, the parameter means that there is a discipline that gives a big advantage to the Opposition—because parliamentary time is valuable, as we know only too well—and the Government really have to get their act together, manage their programme, and finish it within the 12-month period. To extend unilaterally the normal length of a Session is an abuse and is certainly to the massive advantage of the Government.

I do not know whether I should say this in anger or in envy, because anyone involved in managing a Government’s legislative programme every year has the nightmare period of October and early November when you are trying to fit a quart into a pint pot, you know that you have to do it and that you have to observe the conventional gaps between the stages of Bills—or at least you used to have to observe them; this Government do not have a good record on that aspect of our constitution. However, you know that there is a discipline within which you have to work. Moreover, both Houses—the Commons and the Lords—have recognised this process as important. Both Houses have procedures to enable Bills to be carried over. We have all been familiar with the debates that allow, in exceptional circumstances, individual Bills to follow a recognised constitutional procedure—if I may put it as grandly as that. Motions have to be passed and so on. There is a recognition that either House of Parliament can breach the annual sessional understanding only if the Government obey certain rules in relation to individual Bills and do not do that as regards their overall programme.

I do not know whether I should be angry or envious about the fact that the Government have unilaterally given us a two-year Session. I just wish that I had thought of it. When we were in government I wish that I could have thought, “Blimey, I don’t need to worry about getting these Bills through in 12 months; let’s just postpone the Queen’s Speech for another year or however long—whenever it is convenient to the Government to decide when the Queen’s Speech should take place”. Given that we have had all this hyperbole from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and others—not very convincingly—about the Government or the Prime Minister giving away power regarding fixed-term Parliaments, I hope that he will acknowledge, if he believes that argument, that they should give away the power of unilaterally being able to decide when a new Session of Parliament should begin.

By having this two-year Session, the Government have breached an important convention of both Houses. It is reasonable for those of us who are concerned about this to say that we now need to enshrine the proposal in my amendment in legislation. I cannot think of any good argument against, if you know when general elections are going to be, why you should not also determine when the Sessions should be. I beg to move.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, briefly, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said. I very much hope that my noble and learned friend will be positive in response. There is nothing that we can do about this extended Session. It will last until May next year. I regret that. Sessions should last as near as possible for a year, and if we are to move to fixed-term Parliaments, the obvious thing is to have the state opening for each Session in the May of each year. I hope that my noble and learned friend will give me some comfort when he responds.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the principle in my noble friend’s amendment, because it would bring a discipline into what has happened ever since this Government took power, which has been the continual tampering with the constitution for petty party-political advantage. That is a fact of life. I do not like to be provocative, but I am trying to find the words that would best describe this matter. I have mulled over words such as “sleazy”, but if I continued, my words would probably be unparliamentary, and I would not wish to be responsible for any more damage to the office furniture. However, as a former business manager in the Commons, I consider that we are dealing with a completely foolhardy approach to the constitution. We have conventions here, but ever since the advent of this coalition, particularly for the party advantage of one of the partners in the coalition, the majority party opposite is being driven along to stay in power. Precedents are being set that are damaging to the conventions of this House, the other House and the constitution. I appeal to Conservative Members of the coalition, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, whose comments are welcome, that it is past the time that they should put a stop to the roughshod treatment of the constitution.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord McAvoy said; I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Grocott; and I support the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It is worrying when everyone who knows anything about this says—and I do not include myself; I refer to three distinguished ex-Members of the other place—that the effect of there being no control over the Government on how long a Session lasts means that they can play fast and loose with however long it takes them to get the legislation that they want through Parliament. That weakens the power of Parliament. A lot of the constitutional rhetoric of this Government was on strengthening the power of Parliament.

I wish to ask a specific question, because it would appear that the Government understood this position on 25 May 2010, when the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons said in relation to the Bill:

“There is a strong case for pre-legislative scrutiny, but I do not want to extend the consideration of this legislation into the following Session, because that would not be appropriate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/4/10; col. 152.]

He understood the importance of Sessions. He said that on 25 May 2010. Happily for him, on 13 September 2010, the Session was then extended until May 2012, thereby getting rid of the one problem that stood in the way of pre-legislative scrutiny. Can the noble and learned Lord specifically answer as to why the Deputy Leader of the House broke that promise? “Promise” may be overstating it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord should characterise what the Deputy Leader meant. Was it wild musing as to what might happen? Why did he not go ahead with what he had said?

19:30

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for his amendment, which would provide for a minimum of five parliamentary Sessions in every five-year Parliament. I have a lot of sympathy with the spirit of what is proposed, but I will explain why I do not think that it should be enshrined in statute. I accept that having five annual Sessions in a five-year Parliament makes considerable sense. Indeed, under this Bill is it likely that the Parliament elected in 2015 will have five Sessions. The only reason that this Parliament is likely to have four—I will deal with this in more detail in a moment—is the transition to fixed terms and spring state openings. It would not be appropriate to put the amendment into statute; the current arrangements should remain. As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, recognised, even if the Bill did not exist, it would still be possible to change the length of a Session.

I will answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. It was very obvious that the decision to move to spring 2012 was not taken in the early days of this Government. By the time the announcement was made in September, the Bill had already been published. I cannot remember the exact date; it must have been around the time the Bill got its Second Reading. I am being told that in fact it was the same day. That might explain why the Bill did not have pre-legislative scrutiny. I know that I have not answered this point to the satisfaction of the Opposition, who will come back to it time and time again. However, we wished to have this Bill in the first term. It was not in order to get this Bill through that we decided to extend the Session. It is very clear that the reason for the extension was that we wished to move to an annual Queen's Speech in May and therefore an adjustment was required.

We could have reduced the length of this Session, but to have done so half way through would have caused a number of difficulties. That is why it was decided, as a one-off, to extend this Session until spring 2012. There is nothing sinister in that. Most of our legislation would have been passed in any event. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, indicated that there is provision for carry-over. I pause to reflect that the fact that this Session is longer may bring a ray of hope—with reference to the previous debate, I believe that hope was the last thing to come out of Pandora's box—to Members whose Private Members’ Bills are so often frustrated because there are not enough Fridays in the Session to get them through. To suggest that this is a sinister plot on the part of the Executive is grossly misplaced. The purpose is to get into a position where we can have annual Sessions that begin in May. It will be our intention thereafter to have Sessions that run from spring to spring.

It is not appropriate to enshrine this in statute because there may be a case where, if the Bill is enacted, an incumbent Government lost a vote of no confidence and a new Government was formed within 14 days. It is possible in such a scenario that it would be felt that the Session should come to an end and that there should be a new Queen's Speech. Nobody would think that that would be unreasonable in the circumstances. It might be very difficult then to fit in five Sessions. That is why it is better not to stipulate in statute that there should be five Sessions in any one Parliament. A Session might begin after an election in February and come to an end in May, which would not make much sense. It would have to be brought artificially to an end to ensure that the requirement of five Sessions was met.

Having annual May-to-May Sessions will ensure that the final Session of the Parliament is more likely to be much more meaningful and worth while than one which, for example, begins in late November and lasts until the wash-up in late March. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, says, “We’ll see”, but nothing could be less exciting or satisfying than what we experienced in the wash-up last year when we tried to deal with so many Bills that had barely got anywhere. Parts of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which had had only a Second Reading in this House, were passed with only the briefest scrutiny. It had some pre-legislative scrutiny, but no scrutiny in this House. I hope that noble Lords would agree that at the end of the day actual legislative scrutiny is more important than pre-legislative scrutiny.

[Lord Bach]

It is best to have both; I quite agree. That Bill had enormous pre-legislative scrutiny, but should have had more legislative scrutiny. There, I have said it. Now perhaps the noble and learned Lord will admit that his Government, too, are in error. More importantly, they are passing legislation now, so they should learn from any mistakes that we may have made.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

This legislation is having ample legislative scrutiny and I suspect that in times to come we will move towards having much more pre-legislative scrutiny. That is why I argue for five-year fixed terms; there will be more opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny as well as legislative scrutiny. I simply make the point that to truncate one Session into two or three months would not be sensible. Future Sessions will last for only 12 months. What is happening in this Session is a one-off adjustment so we can get into the pattern of spring to spring Sessions that would fit the election timetable of fixed-term Parliaments with elections in May. For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is getting tired or whether I am. He has ample reason for getting tired because he has been heroic as the only Minister dealing with this vital constitutional Bill. However, I simply did not understand what he said. We had a general election in May last year and he said that in order to adjust to the situation where we know the date of the next general election, which will be five years from last May, the length of this Session of Parliament had to be adjusted to accommodate that. I do not understand that argument.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to explain it. It was clear from the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the other place in May of last year that the decision to extend the Session to spring 2012 was not made in the early days. The working assumption was that we would go forward as we normally do after an election in May and have the first Session running through to the following October or November. It is not giving away any state secrets to say that that was the assumption. We then considered whether it was better to move to a situation where, if we were going to have fixed-term Parliaments, the Sessions should run annually, May to May. An announcement was made in September, which would normally have been between a third and half way through the Session. There was an option to truncate the Session about now, but it was thought that the best thing to do was to go to next year. There is nothing sinister in that; we were totally open. However, this is a one-off change and from next year, Sessions will go from May to May. That is the right way to proceed. I hope the noble Lord will accept that there was nothing sinister in this, but that it was an adjustment made in-year, given that the original expectation was to go through until the autumn of this year.

[Lord Grocott]

I am not saying that it is sinister; I am just saying that it is illogical. If the Government decided in those five days in May that there were to be five-year fixed-term Parliaments, why was it not plain as a pikestaff that in normal circumstances that would mean five annual Sessions? No adjustment was required. A year would take you to the following May, then the May after that and so on. I do not need to go through it. With respect, it seems obvious to everyone in the House apart from the Minister that that is the logic of a five-year Parliament.

I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, which have been 100 per cent on the side of those who agree with the amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

We did not, in those five days in May, think about moving from one year to one year to one year. That is the simple answer and I hope that the noble Lord will accept it at face value.

[Lord Grocott]

Of course I accept that and I shall not labour it further if the Minister assures me that the coalition was not going to tamper with that aspect of our constitution. However, I emphasise the sheer inconsistency of rejecting this amendment when the whole rationale—if there is one, although I doubt it as every day passes—of the Government’s comprehensive constitutional reform programme is to provide a degree of predictability and take away powers from the Executive. My amendment simply tests the Government’s sincerity and commitment to that by requiring them to correct their very inadequate and unsatisfactory decision unilaterally to make it much easier for the Government to legislate.

I fear that there is a tendency by the Minister—it is understandable when you are taking a complicated and important Bill such as this through the House on your own—to assume that, if any amendment is put down, particularly by the opposition Benches, the duty of the people in the Box is to find reasons for saying no to it. If the Minister were to put a cold towel over his head and think in as dispassionate a way as he is allowed—I do not mean “allowed” in any sense other than that this Government seem to be totally locked into their constitutional reform programmes, which do not seem to be thought out in a coherent way—he would come to the conclusion that, once the deal had been sealed between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, there would be no flexibility on that Bench to make any adjustments whatever.

Before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may appeal to the Minister to tell those of a higher pay grade that this really is a sensible proposal, which, so far as we have tested the opinion of the Committee, has 100 per cent support from everyone but the Government, and that, if they are to be consistent in their principles, about which, as I said, I am not thrilled, they really ought to see the logic and sense of having fixed annual Sessions within five-year fixed Parliaments. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Amendments 16 and 17 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.43 pm.

European Council Decision: EUC Report

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

19:43

Moved By

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That, in accordance with Section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, this House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of draft European Council Decision EUC 33/10.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the European Union Committee.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, this Motion is a necessary part of the process leading to a treaty change required by the member states of the European Union in the eurozone. I shall explain the purpose of, and need for, the Motion in detail in a moment. However, at the outset I observe that it is very much in the United Kingdom’s national interest that this House, under the terms of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which we all recall, should approve this Motion without amendment so that the Prime Minister may support the adoption of the draft European Council decision to amend Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union at the European Council meeting scheduled for 24 and 25 March.

As the Leader of the House made clear in his Statement following the December European Council, no one should doubt that stability in the eurozone is important for the United Kingdom. A large proportion of our trade is with the eurozone and London is Europe’s international financial centre. It is because of this interrelationship that the UK’s financial institutions and companies, both big and small, have huge exposure to the banks and businesses based throughout the eurozone. Worsening stability is therefore a real threat to the UK economy, as I am sure all your Lordships appreciate.

In explaining the background, I begin by reminding the House of the conclusion drawn on this proposed treaty change by the European Union Sub-Committee on Economic and Financial Affairs and International Trade at its meeting on 1 February. In his letter to the Minister for Europe, the chairman of the Select Committee on the European Union said:

“We fully support your view that it is in the UK’s interest to support a stable and prosperous Eurozone. Given that this Treaty amendment would not apply to, or have any financial risks for, the UK, we support your intention to vote in favour of this amendment. We have agreed to clear this document from scrutiny”.

From that background quotation I move to the reason why are we having this short debate this evening. First, Section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act, arising of course from the Lisbon treaty, requires that when a draft decision under the simplified revision procedure—that is, Article 48(6) of the treaty—is proposed, a Minister must introduce a Motion and have it passed by both Houses without amendment before the Prime Minister can signal his agreement to the adoption of that draft decision at a subsequent European Council. Secondly, if the House approves this Motion, it authorises the Prime Minister to agree to this draft decision and this draft decision alone at the European Council. Should there be any amendment to the draft decision at the European Council, the Prime Minister could not agree to it at the European Council without first coming back to another place and this House for additional approval. Therefore, the draft decision referred to in this Motion will be the version that is agreed at the European Council. There can be no other without the further approval of this House in a further debate such as the one that we are having tonight.

If the draft decision is adopted by the European Council under Article 48(6), all 27 member states must then also approve the treaty change in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements before the decision can enter into force. This means that the treaty amendment itself will not come into effect until the UK and all other member states approve or ratify the adopted decision.

However, if the European Union Bill, which has just been introduced to this House and will have its Second Reading tomorrow, becomes law, this treaty change will also be subject to Parliament’s approval by Act before the UK can ratify it. We have made it clear that we shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of that Bill. In other words, there will be a full further opportunity for your Lordships to debate this matter when the treaty change comes forward in due course for ratification, which under our new procedures will require the full processes of primary legislation. That is an important change from the position in the past.

I turn to how the proposed treaty change came about. As your Lordships will know, it originates from the need for a permanent mechanism to be established by the member states of the euro area to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as a whole. That is an obvious need. In May last year, the European Union established two emergency instruments to respond to financial crises. The first is the European financial stability facility. This is a temporary facility established intergovernmentally by euro area member states to provide loans to euro area member states in difficulty. It is a limited fund and is due to end in June 2013. The second is the European financial stability mechanism, which the coalition Government, of whom I am a member, inherited from the previous Government. Under this mechanism, the Council can agree, by qualified majority, to the Commission providing assistance using money raised on the financial markets, backed by the EU budget. It therefore creates an indirect liability for the United Kingdom. That is a very important point.

Against the backdrop of continued uncertainty in financial markets, the members of the European Council agreed in December to amend Article 136 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union to provide that member states of the eurozone may establish a permanent stability mechanism. This mechanism, the European stability mechanism or ESM, will provide a necessary means for dealing with cases that pose a risk to the financial stability of the euro area as a whole, so it is important to us given the extent of our trade with it. This is what we are dealing with tonight.

The details of how the ESM will operate are being discussed in Brussels. In accordance with the conclusions of the December European Council, member states whose currency is not the euro can be involved, on a voluntary basis, in finalising work on the design of the ESM, which will be established by intergovernmental arrangement among the eurozone member states. My colleagues at the Treasury are responsible for overseeing the UK input to these discussions.

I stress that although we are involved on a voluntary basis in the design of the mechanism—it is very much in our interest to be so—we cannot and will not be part of it. In fact, we could not be part of it unless we joined the euro area. As the whole House is aware, this Government will not join the euro and, if the EU Bill becomes law, any future Government who wished to do so could join only with parliamentary approval by Act of Parliament and the British people’s approval by referendum. I should like to reassure your Lordships that the proposed treaty change does not and will not transfer any competence or power from the United Kingdom to the European Union. As I said, this treaty change is in our national interests. Instability in the eurozone has direct implications for the UK and all the other economies in the single market and beyond.

On top of that, the Prime Minster negotiated successfully two important objectives. First, as the conclusions of the December European Council confirm—that is the so-called recitals—once the ESM is established to safeguard the stability of the euro area, Article 122(2), on which basis the old EFSM was established, will no longer be used for such purposes. Our liability for helping to bail out the euro area through European Union borrowing backed by the EU budget will cease. It is crucial to our interests that it does cease. Secondly, securing a tight budget for the future is our highest priority. At the last two European Councils, Britain led an alliance of member states in limiting the 2011 EU budget increase to 2.91 per cent, as your Lordships have already discussed and debated in this House. In moving forward, working alongside key partners such as France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland, we are committed to a real-terms freeze in the EU budget from 2014 to 2020 and we have written to the President of the European Commission setting out our position.

Without this Motion this evening, the consequences would be serious and damaging for Britain. The Prime Minster would not be able to signal his support for the draft decision at the March European Council next week and the decision then could not be adopted, as like all other treaty changes it requires unanimity. This means that, if it failed, Britain would remain indirectly liable for eurozone bailouts through the EFSM, as it would not have been replaced by the ESM. By supporting the adoption of this treaty change at the March European Council, the UK will be supporting the members of the eurozone to establish a permanent mechanism, which will make clear the responsibilities of all the members of the eurozone to each other and to the overall stability of the euro area.

That means that we will ensure that our current indirect liability for eurozone bailouts comes to an end in 2013. As this new mechanism is established using the treaty provisions specific to members of the euro area, it will not apply to non-euro area member states and cannot confer any obligations on them. I hope that I have provided your Lordships with an explanation of the mechanisms, which I agree are not simple, and the purposes for passing this Motion tonight. I beg to move.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, the importance of this debate is that the decisions will be made by the European Council at the end of this week, on 24 and 25 March. I speak as the chair of the Economic and Financial Affairs and International Trade Sub-Committee, which has had correspondence with the Government on this. The matter has also gone to your Lordships’ European Union Select Committee for scrutiny. It was thought appropriate in the light of the importance of this debate that this report should be provided on amending Article 136 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union in order to help colleagues to come to a decision.

The noble Lord has rightly pointed out the origins of the problem and the creation of a response to the financial crisis brought about by our Greek colleagues. That relates to the establishment of the European financial stability facility, which is agreed by member states within the eurozone, and the EFSM, the separate mechanism that draws on the European Union budget and, therefore, involves the United Kingdom.

As the Minister said, the matter was raised under Article 122(2) of the European Union treaty, which points out that, in exceptional circumstances that are beyond the control of any one member state, action can be taken to help out that member state. We wrote to the Government and asked whether they felt that that conflicted with Article 125, which is the no-bailout clause, but the Government replied to us insisting that the EFSM provided loans not bailouts and that, therefore, there is a distinction. Incidentally, we have also drawn on the report, which we hope will be cleared by the Select Committee tomorrow, on EU economic governance. Within that report we interviewed many experts on these matters in looking at the basis for the decisions made. There is agreement that this was the right and proper way forward.

We arrive at a situation where a new permanent crisis mechanism has to be created at the end of 2013 when the mechanism and the facility are abandoned. On 16 and 17 December 2010, the European Council decided on the new mechanism, which is to be called the European stability mechanism. It is also the case that Article 122(2), the exceptional circumstances clause, is no longer to be used. Instead—I think that it is true to say that there was pressure from Chancellor Merkel of Germany, who wanted not to fall foul of the German constitutional court—there was insistence on having a treaty change and hence an amendment to Article 136 as printed in the document that we have submitted and which is being proposed now. The process is that, under Article 48(6) of the European Union treaty, amendments to part 3 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, which includes Article 136, the subject of the debate this evening, can be appropriate. Therefore, as the Minister has explained, we have the simplified revision procedure as the mechanism for achieving that. Perhaps we should say that this is the first use of that procedure.

20:00

The amendment was agreed in the European Council. The effect of the simplified procedure is that an intergovernmental conference, a convention of national parliaments or a convention of Governments, the European Parliament and the European Central Bank is not convened. Instead, it requires that the European Parliament and the Commission are consulted and that, because of the exceptional circumstances, the European Central Bank is also consulted. As the Minister explained, that has to be ratified by all member states. Hence we have a separate Motion in each House.

Mention has been made of tomorrow’s Second Reading of the EU Bill. It is perhaps unusual for us to look prospectively as far as it touches on this matter, but it is probably right to do so. We have to attain parliamentary approval for voting on treaty amendments. Then we have to ask whether a referendum to be ratified by the British people would follow. We think that the amendment of Article 136 does not fall foul of that provision, under Clause 4. The Government, as is their obligation, have stated that it does not apply. The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum also points out that the new mechanism will not apply to non-euro states. The amendment does not involve an increase of the European Union’s competences, as we understand it. The amendment therefore provides for action solely in the euro area. The mechanism is set up by euro members and hence separates the United Kingdom from involvement.

It is a matter of urgency to support the setting up of the European stability mechanism, which must be ratified by all member states. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both said at the outset of their tenure that the viability and support of the euro was important for Britain’s financial future. That, too, must be underlined. I hope that the short document produced by the European Union Select Committee, on advice from Sub-Committee A, has been useful for this debate.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I thank my right honourable friend for introducing the measure before the House. I accept 100 per cent that the provisions do not apply to us. I entirely support the Government's attitude that they should not in any way obstruct the setting up of the ESM. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for the helpful report published by the Select Committee. I just have two brief questions for my right honourable friend.

[Noble Lords]

Noble friend.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My noble friend, my right honourable and noble friend, as he always is and always will be.

As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned, at paragraph 6 of the report the Select Committee commented—admittedly, it was talking about the EFSM rather than the ESM—that it did not conflict with the no-bailout provisions in the original Maastricht treaty, now incorporated in the TFEU. Of course, I know only what I read in the report about how it was argued by witnesses before the committee that that did not constitute a bailout because the EFSM did not assume responsibility for the debts. The same arguments must arise with the ESM.

Does the Minister seriously, with a straight face, believe that that does not constitute an infringement of the “no bailout” provisions? It seems extraordinary to say that just because loans are being extended, if there is a rescheduling of debts, that does not constitute a bailout. I do not think that that is what the Germans had in mind at the time, when they argued against bailouts and for a “no bailout” provision in the Maastricht Treaty. Bear in mind that the new facility, the ESM, will, like the EFSM, issue securities which will be guaranteed by the member Governments of the EU. I know that this is a sideshow for our Government, but it is extraordinary to describe that as not conflicting with the “no bailout” provisions.

The second question I want to ask my right honourable and noble friend is more directly germane to the UK. When the German Government agreed to support the ESM, part of the package they insisted on, from what I read in the newspapers, was something called the competitiveness pact, which covered a whole range of policies including: the indexation of wages as applied to countries such as Belgium; the retirement age; and having a uniform system of corporate tax. All that was put forward as part of a quid pro quo that the German Government wanted in exchange for agreeing to the ESM, to which there was some resistance on the part of the German public.

As my right honourable and noble friend may have noticed, fears have been raised in the Economist magazine that those provisions could have an impact wider than the eurozone and might affect us and other non-euro members of the EU. I entirely support the Government’s policy of allowing what is happening with the establishment of the ESM to go ahead; for us to have nothing to do with it but to allow it to go ahead; but I am concerned by the points made by the Economist about how that could spill over into measures that would have an effect on competition and the competitiveness of the rest of the EU. The magazine argued that the competitiveness of the whole might be undermined by protectionist measures taken under the rubric of the competitiveness pact. I hope that my right honourable and noble friend follows my point. I would like to be assured that that is not the case. I would like to be told how the competitiveness pact will be given legislative effect and how we will ensure that it does not have adverse repercussions on us, and other countries not in the eurozone.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I rise to speak against the Motion. The heart of the Government's case is that it is in our national interest to help the countries in the eurozone, so we should not withhold our consent to the proposed European stability mechanism. To justify that, the Government even trot out the tired old propaganda about half of our trade being with the eurozone, which is irrelevant nonsense, as I have often pointed out.

The Government are really asking us to agree that the euro should be propped up, which is a very different and risky thing to do. I say that because the euro is so badly designed that it may be un-prop-up-able, certainly in the long term, probably in the medium term and possibly, if one looks at what is happening now in Portugal—not to mention Greece, Ireland, Italy and perhaps Spain—in the short term. The euro's main design faults, as some of us have been trying to point out since before it was born, are that it is a currency area without a federal budget. There is no mechanism for sending support from rich areas in the zone to the poor areas. Its different economies also suffer from a single interest rate and exchange rate with the results we are already seeing in the countries I have mentioned.

The Government’s answer to that in this Motion tonight seems to be that there is nothing to worry about because this new ESM means that the poor old Germans will pay and so will the French, the Dutch and the other countries that already donate to keep the whole unfortunate project of European integration afloat. The question is: will they? For how long? How much? Even if the cosy European political class thinks it is all a splendid idea, what about real people? What about the massive public protests in Portugal over the weekend and those we have seen in Greece? What about Marine Le Pen in France? Indeed, what about UKIP in the recent Barnsley by-election? [Laughter.] Well, I had to put that plug in.

What about another thing? This is a question to the Minister. What about the vote in the German Bundestag last Thursday, when five out of the six main parties gave their consent to the ESM but only with some strings attached? I know this is only a European Parliament, which is made irrelevant, as we know, under the project of European integration. It is not the European Union, but nevertheless, those strings are important. They included strengthening the stability and growth pact, guaranteeing the independence of the European Central Bank, guaranteeing that the EMS would be activated only in emergency cases, a restructuring procedure that would include private creditors and a guarantee that the eurozone would not turn into a transfer union. This last string looks something like shutting the stable door to me, but perhaps the Minister will care to opine. Does the ESM in effect set up a transfer union in clear breach of Article 125 or does it not?

The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, agreed with the Government that it does not breach Article 125, so perhaps it is worth putting on the record, very briefly, the key part of Article 125, which states:

“The Union shall not be shall be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments … A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments”.

I agree with my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Lamont. Of course this does that. At the very least, even for Article 122, so roundly abused just before the present Government came to power, which was designed to help out with natural disasters and things like that, surely a loan which is not repaid becomes a commitment. Here with this ESM, we are in the clearest possible terms breaching Article 125. I would like the Minister to tell us: are we are helping to setting up a transfer union or are we not?

The Bundestag’s third condition—that the ESM should be used only in emergency cases—also looks a bit optimistic. It reflects the proposed additional paragraph to Article 136 which states that the ESM will be activated only if it is indispensable to save the stability of the euro as a whole. I think the Minister told us that this detail has not yet been worked out. We are voting for something that we do not know how it will work. Can he tell us who or what will decide when the use of the ESM has become indispensable? Will it be the Council, in which we sit, and if so will we have a vote, or will it be the Commission and/or the central bank? Will the IMF be involved, which again concerns us? In short, can the Minister tell us how the new European stability mechanism will be activated?

20:15

To conclude, I submit that it is really not in this country’s interest to prop up the euro. The quicker it disintegrates the better, with countries that cannot afford to be part of it going back to their national currencies. Only then will they be able to start trading their way out of the colossal debts into which the euro and the project of European integration have led them. Mr Van Rompuy has just said that the EU will collapse if the euro fails. I fear he may be wrong and that the juggernaut of European integration could continue without the euro and would indeed do so, but if he turns out to be right, what a pleasant prospect greets us: no Commission, no Committee of Permanent Representatives, no Council of Ministers, no European Court of so-called Justice, no EU Parliament, none of the colossal fraud, waste and overregulation which weigh us down at home and in our competition and trade with the rest of the world. We would be left with a Europe of democratic nations freely trading and collaborating. It is to those sunlit uplands that the Government should be leading this country and the rest of Europe. That is where the national interest lies, not in this grubby instrument of doubtful legality.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, because I always think that debates in your Lordships' House are much better when we are not all agreeing with each other. He wants the euro to fail. We on these Benches want it to succeed, and therefore we support the Motion before us this evening. Without having a huge discussion on the history of the euro, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that the euro has survived the worst financial crisis certainly in our lifetimes, and has survived many naysayers over the past two or three years who very confidently and regularly predicted that it was about to collapse. It is quite clear that the euro is not going to collapse and that the eurozone is going to continue. Indeed, it is likely to be strengthened as a result of the decisions which are currently being finalised.

It is one of the long-standing features of our view of the EU and the euro that at every point they were about to collapse and, indeed, that the European venture was about to stall, and at every point it has moved forward in its peculiar but almost inevitable way. There was a typical example of this attitude just last week when the FT, reporting on the eurozone summit on this mechanism, had as its headline “Leaders cut surprise deal on key reforms”. The history of European development has been leaders predictably cutting surprise deals when nearing a deadline, which is exactly what has happened here.

I do not intend to attempt to dissect the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in great detail, but I point out to him that member states are not donating anything to anyone via this mechanism. The Irish are paying 6 per cent on these loans and are grumbling mightily about them, so just as the British Government are getting a good return on the loans that they are making, member states that are making loans under this mechanism will be getting a pretty good return.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I did not suggest that this Government were donating to any other member state through this mechanism; I merely pointed out that we donate generally to the coffers of the European Union—to the tune this year of £17.6 billion gross and £8.3 billion net. That is net cash that we are sending to Brussels and that goes down the drain there—a figure, I might say, that we are struggling to cut from our own public expenditure.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I misheard him. I distinctly wrote down that he said that a donation was involved in this process.

My one question to the Minister springs from my concern about the way in which the eurozone is developing, which is simply that the UK’s role in relation to it is extremely strange. We are obviously not part of it, so we are not in many of the meetings. Yet from time to time we are allowed to have a say. What worries me is that with the passage of time that say gets less and less over a whole raft of economic decisions across the EU. In the current exercise, we were allowed to help in the design of the ESM, which presumably means that Treasury officials went to meetings to talk about how it was going to work. What worries me is that, once it is established, those Treasury officials will be told that they have been extremely helpful, that their advice has been most valuable and that they can now go back to London and let the rest of the eurozone implement the policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has pointed out, there are a whole raft of secondary consequences for the competitiveness pact, which will undoubtedly have an impact on the UK and on which, as far as I understand it, we will have no say at all in the future.

Will the Minister explain whether, once the ESM is established, there will be any further role for the UK Government and their officials in the design of the conditions that might be required or suggested from time to time to apply in particular cases when member states are being bailed out? These changes could be extremely worrying, not necessarily because they or the conditions are bad in themselves but because, although we are affected by them, we will have had no say in the way in which they are put together.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I suppose I could just say that I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has said and sit down, but I will not do that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for explaining very complicated legislation to us. I think I understand it a bit better now that he has explained it. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a serious matter that we are discussing. I think I am right in saying that, during debates on the Lisbon treaty, the then Official Opposition considered Article 48(6)to be an unnecessary and perhaps dangerous measure that could be used to extend European Union power without proper parliamentary scrutiny. I feel that that was their position at the time. Now, even though they have been in power for only 10 months, they are using this provision to extend the power of the eurozone. I do not know what has happened. Perhaps the Liberal part of the coalition is having more influence than it should.

There has not been an IGC, which has been pointed out already. The Motion received only one and a half hour’s debate in the House of Commons and a dinner hour debate in this House. We are not really having the sort of discussion that we should have before the Prime Minister goes to Europe to make a decision. It may be that we will have further discussions in due course but this Motion is to give the Prime Minister the power to act under Article 48(6). It is the first time that that has been done and it is therefore a serious matter. Although we are not at present members of the eurozone and ESM will not affect us, it will nevertheless become part of the European Union’s powers across the board. If this country should join the eurozone, this provision would automatically apply to us. That surely is right. If it is not right, perhaps the noble Lord will say that it is not right and why it is not right.

Furthermore, this first use of the simplified revision procedures is likely to be the thin end of the wedge. This will not be the first time that it will be used. Once a provision is used, it sets a precedent and it will be much easier to use it on other occasions in the future. It is claimed that when the European Union Bill, which we will discuss tomorrow, becomes law, it will prevent Article 48(6) from being misused. But can we be certain of that? Will the noble Lord say that there will never be any conditions under which Article 48(6) cannot be used without parliamentary procedure or perhaps even a referendum? Since the measure has to be agreed by a unanimous vote, the United Kingdom at present has a veto.

During the election, the Conservatives said that they wanted to repatriate to this country a range of measures which they believed were inimical to the best interests of the United Kingdom. Why then are the Government not using this factor—the fact that they have a veto over this provision being discussed tonight—to renegotiate parts of the treaties which are inimical to British interests, especially those relating to industry and commerce? I am also puzzled as to why the eurozone nations cannot agree a system of control that does not involve a treaty change. Is it perhaps because Germany wishes to use this procedure to strengthen its position as leader of the European Union?

The Government state that maintaining the eurozone as a stable and fully functioning entity is in the United Kingdom’s interest and the European Union Committee endorses that view. I do not believe that that is necessarily so. I am not at all sure that the eurozone is necessary for this country to prosper. Indeed, I could probably, if there was time, produce an argument to show that the eurozone works against this country’s interests. It should be no part of this country’s policy to maintain the eurozone in being no matter what the circumstances are.

Let us not forget that the experience of the eurozone so far has not been a happy one. At least four of its members are in dire financial and economic trouble, needing massive tranches—that is what this debate is about—of bail-out money. Interest rates in the eurozone have been kept at an artificially high rate, thus resulting in lower growth in many of its member states and very high unemployment. That is something this country should deplore, wherever it occurs.

Being in the eurozone does not affect our trade in the way that the Minister outlined. The fact is that we are in Europe and we are part of the single market, and whether the eurozone exists or not, the single market will still be there, as it was there before we joined the eurozone. What I believe is that being within the European Union and within the single market in fact damages our ability to export to the much wider world than the European Union represents. Already we see the Chinese and the Indians making great inroads into markets in Africa and elsewhere which, untrammelled by the European Union, this country could be exploiting. I have some doubts about this measure, although I suppose it is going to go through. But I hope that the assurances which have been given by the Minister will be carried out.

20:31

[Lord Liddle]

This debate has been a curious experience for me because, having listened to the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I am perhaps a much stronger supporter of what the Government are doing than I think I ought to be. I believe that the Government are right to support this measure and I think that both noble Lords are completely wrong in thinking that somehow it would be in the British national interest to pull the house of the euro down, causing currency chaos and economic disruption on a huge scale in order to pursue their own hatred and fanaticism in their opposition to the European Union.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My suggestion was not that we should pull the eurozone down but that it is not necessary for us to take these measures to bolster the eurozone at all.

[Lord Liddle]

Of course I accept what the noble Lord says, but the implication was that the euro would come tumbling down, and I think that the economic consequences for us, with our trade and economic links to Europe, would be very serious. Further, the instability that would be created by a German mark soaring and a Greek drachma plunging would be too horrendous to contemplate.

What I want to do in my brief remarks is to declare that I support what is being proposed, but with two qualifications. First, what we have seen tonight is an excellent example of parliamentary accountability. This motion has been put to the House and, before it is approved by the European Council, we have an opportunity to say whether we agree with it or not. If I may anticipate the debate tomorrow on the EU Bill, this is in sharp contrast to what will be proposed under the new arrangements. What we are going to have there is a requirement for the Government somehow to argue that, under the proposed criteria, a referendum would not be justified for this measure. I am totally opposed to multiple referenda and will be arguing that tomorrow, but on the basis that the Government are arguing, it seems extraordinary to suggest that what we have before us with the European stability mechanism is somehow not a big extension of competence and is not significant. It is extremely significant.

Indeed, I would argue that what is happening in the eurozone at the moment is as significant a development for the strengthening of its governance as we have had since the establishment of the single currency and the single market in the 1980s. It is a far more significant development than the Treaty of Lisbon or the constitutional treaty that preceded it. It is for European integration very significant.

One cannot argue that this is of no relevance to Britain. For one thing, the ESM will be one pillar of a new regime of economic governance that includes macroeconomic surveillance and a competiveness pact. I do not argue that these measures are perfect; in fact, they are far less than ideal and this should be very much work in progress. However, integration of economic governance is certainly proceeding.

The Government make the crucial error of thinking of this question in terms of a transfer of power to Brussels from the United Kingdom. They argue that, because Britain is not in the eurozone, there is no transfer of power. However, what in fact is going on within the whole of the European Union at the moment is a very big shift in the balance of power, with the likely creation of a eurozone bloc that has a much bigger influence on the economic policies of the whole of the EU. It is about this important change in the balance of power that we should really be concerned, instead of going on about transfers of power.

Perhaps I may cite one example that is directly related to the subject of the ESM: the issue of financial regulation. If we have a sovereign debt crisis in a eurozone member country and it is necessary for there to be a restructuring of the debt, it will logically lead to problems in the banks which own the bonds that have lost much of their face value. That will in turn require new rules on the capital adequacy of banks and on banking mergers. If there are to be in future stages restructurings of Greek and Irish sovereign debt, there will also be grave consequences for financial regulation and the banking system. We are exposing ourselves to real loss of influence on these matters, because it will be a eurozone bloc that decides in terms of its own interests what those regulations should be. We will turn up at the Council of Finance Ministers with that decision in practice having been taken, with majority voting there in the Council of Finance Ministers, and with very little opportunity for us to influence it. When one thinks that the City of London is one of our key interests, one realises that this is quite a serious threat to us.

Of course, the new regime is not ideal and it is work in progress—I dare say that my noble friend Lord Eatwell will say something about this. My strong view is that if something is not ideal we should use our maximum influence to try to change it. Obviously, there is no immediate prospect of us joining the euro and becoming part of the ESM, but we should try to involve ourselves intimately in the discussions that are taking place. I am worried that the Government, as far as I can see, are not doing that. Mrs Merkel, as I understand it, made an offer to the British Government whereby they could be part of the competitiveness pact that she was trying to negotiate. Apparently the British Government have said that they do not wish to be part of that pact, whereas Poland, which is equally not a member of the euro area, is anxious not to be excluded from these decisions on economic governance questions which go wider than the eurozone.

There is a significant problem here for the United Kingdom and the Government ought to recognise this. They should also recognise that something of fundamental importance to our economic future and, indeed, to our sovereignty is happening here.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, this is the first time that a Motion of this sort has been debated in your Lordships’ House. We are, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, creating a precedent, although I am not entirely clear how long the precedent will last with respect to the discussion that we will have tomorrow. However, it clearly is important that we should define the criterion that we ought to apply to our assessment of the Motion.

The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum suggests that they have clearly applied the criterion of the “UK national interest”. In support of this Motion to give the green light to the establishment of the ESM, the memorandum states emphatically:

“We therefore support this draft proposal to amend the Treaty to make clear that the euro area Member States can establish a permanent ESM. The UK will directly benefit”—

directly benefit—

“from increased stability of the euro area brought about by the ESM, without being part of the new mechanism or having any obligations under it”.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, repeated at some length the idea that this is directly in Britain’s benefit. Indeed, so important is the ESM deemed to be to the UK that, as the Explanatory Memorandum tells us, and as the Minister confirmed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer eagerly proposed UK participation in the design of the mechanism—participation which has apparently taken place.

This repeated emphasis on the importance of the ESM to the UK and of UK participation in the design process sits rather uncomfortably with the other theme of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“The ESM established by the proposed treaty change will be set up by the euro area countries for euro area countries with no financial liability on the non-euro area Member States or the EU budget. There are therefore no direct financial implications associated with agreeing the draft decisions to amend the TFEU to establish the ESM”.

So on the one hand we have a direct benefit, but on the other hand there are no direct financial implications.

It is, of course, entirely possible to hold these seemingly contradictory positions at the same time. For example, the policies of the United States Government have a direct economic impact on the UK, and yet we have no responsibility for their financial implications. However, the key difference here is that we do have a direct responsibility—we have actually participated in the design of this mechanism. This Government have both a primary and a secondary responsibility for the mechanism agreed: primarily because we participated in its design; and secondarily because, as has frequently been acknowledged, the performance of the ESM is of direct national interest to the UK.

In his introduction the Minister told us nothing whatever about the ESM itself. It really is essential that, when he sums up, he remedy that failure and answer some of the pertinent questions about the impact of the ESM on the UK. He quoted my noble friend Lord Harrison, saying that we should support a stable and prosperous eurozone, which of course we should; but when my noble friend wrote that letter in February he could not have known what we know now. In the early hours of the morning of Saturday, 13 March, eurozone leaders reached agreement on the structure of the ESM, to be ratified by the European Council this week. The assessment of whether the agreement of 13 March is or is not in the best interests of the UK is the key issue and it should be based on one clear criterion: will it work? That is the fundamental question, which the Minister has not even bothered to address this evening.

20:45

The purpose of the ESM is to provide a mechanism for managing debt crises within the eurozone. There is no doubt that that would be a good thing, in the words of 1066 And All That. There are two ways of managing a debt crisis: either by a bailout—the provision of funds or guarantees; or by restructuring—or, to give it its proper name, default. The crucial factor in the design of the ESM which distinguishes it from previous mechanisms is that it provides a mechanism for default—something essentially impossible today without falling foul of the German constitutional court, since Germany, under current mechanisms, would have to make good on the guarantees that it has provided. The default mechanism works by making the loans and guarantees made by the ESM senior to those made by all other investors in euro-country bonds. So the private investors are at risk, but the ESM is at far less risk.

There is a catch in this: the private investors will notice. Indeed, today’s private investors will notice what is coming in two years’ time and, even now, will be far less willing to support the bonds of Governments who are likely to get into trouble. That is how financial markets work. So the device does not actually get the German Government off the hook. Will the German Government be willing to push for systemic default when they are no longer on the line, when they have only senior debt and others are forced into a junior position? The likely answer is no, because the opprobrium would be too great for the eurozone to survive. Instead, with this design of the ESM, there will just be more bailouts and more onerous conditions imposed on the long-suffering citizens of Greece and Ireland, and perhaps Spain and Portugal, with damaging political consequences for the European Union and, crucially, damaging economic consequences for the UK. In other words, the proposed ESM neither creates an effective default mechanism nor provides for a fresh flow of funding to countries in the grip of a debt crisis. Indeed, it will weaken that flow. This mechanism will not work. Therefore, it is not in the best interests of the UK that it be implemented.

When the Minister sums up, will he confirm that my description of the proposed working of the ESM agreed last week is accurate? What do the Government expect the impact to be of defining ESM debt as senior on private debt markets? Have the Government assessed the impact of that measure on current interest rate premiums? Will he say precisely why Her Majesty’s Government believe that the likely outcome of the proposed mechanism will be to the benefit of the UK? Will he explain to the House why Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to ratify a change to the treaty that is likely to have damaging economic consequences for the UK? He said that not to ratify would expose the UK because of the continuation of the EFSM, but the EFSM is reviewed every six months. There is no unconditional continuation of that particular mechanism and no continuing exposure of the UK.

I said in my opening remarks that we are creating a precedent. It would be unfortunate if that precedent were to be that Motions are agreed by this House on the nod, without proper scrutiny. I fully understand and sympathise with the noble Lord that many of the technical aspects of the ESM were agreed only a week ago. But it was a full week ago. Surely we could have considered what those mechanisms were, and the Government could have made a report to this House explaining the mechanisms which have been agreed and assessing their impact on the UK. If we are unable to assess the actual measures precisely, then—if the noble Lord really has respect for this House—he should withdraw this Motion and bring it back with proper documentation so that we can fully assess the impact of the actual mechanism which we are being asked to agree.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken on this Motion and applied their—in many cases—extremely acute learning and expertise to the various issues that arise. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who has just spoken with the tremendous skill of a professional economist, if I may dare call him that—but anyway an expert—made some very acute points. He seemed at one point to come very near to questioning the whole future virtue of the euro and the eurozone and asking me to describe details of the ESM system, of which of course the design is not yet complete. He is asking me to produce something that simply does not exist yet and, much as I am anxious to please him, I cannot do that this evening. The ESM has yet to be completed. The British Government will be involved in input to that design, but we will not actually be part of it—so I am not quite sure how I can describe something that has not yet been put together yet. I would love to try, but I am not sure how I can do it.

[Lord Eatwell]

Would the Minister explain why he is asking this House to agree to a Motion that he asserts is going to be in the best interests of the UK when he does not even know the mechanism that the Motion will create?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

For the obvious reason that, in order to go ahead with the design of the ESM, there has to be first this Motion and then the alteration of the treaty, which under our new provisions of the EU Bill will also be debated in this House. We have to start the process off. If the proposition is that we cannot start until we know everything and that we are not going to know everything until we start, the noble Lord is asking me to go around in circles. That is often the fate of those in government, but in this case I prefer to begin to proceed on a process. Of course, I cannot stand here and say that what is going to emerge for the ESM and members of the eurozone will all be wonderful and work perfectly and that the eurozone will be happy for ever. The noble Lord could not reasonably expect me to be able to say that. I have no idea, as there are major issues of a geopolitical, political and economic nature lying ahead for the organisation of a financial structure for the eurozone, and none of us can be dead certain how these things will turn out. What one can say is that this is a move in the direction of trying to stabilise the eurozone, which the Government believe is in the interests of the United Kingdom. The noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart, took different views, but that is what we believe and that is the Government’s position.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

The Minister is confirming what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said and what I asked him in my few remarks. We are being asked to agree something when we do not know what it will be. Why cannot we agree to the next phase going ahead and then make a final decision when we know what we are talking about? Why cannot we do it that way around?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Perhaps the noble Lord has not understood. That is exactly what your Lordships are being asked to do—to go ahead with the next phase. The Motion is required under the Lisbon treaty legislation; there will be a full debate on the new primary legislation, which we will start debating tomorrow. This is the next phase. The alternative is obviously to stand pat and do nothing, which the Government believe very strongly would be a serious and damaging step, which might lead, although I cannot guarantee it, to very serious damage for this country. So it seems right to take the next step forward. That is what both Houses of Parliament have been asked to do in order that the Prime Minister can take the necessary measures at the European Council later this week. Noble Lords are quite right—I said next week but I meant this week.

One or two of the points that have been raised are complex and important. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, referred to the excellent Select Committee report which confirmed a number of the points that I have made, including the very important one that Article 122(2), which is the one governing the EFSM, will no longer be used. That is just as well because it had a liability for the UK.

My noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked two questions. The first was on whether Article 125 was compatible with having no bailout. He asked whether I, with a straight face, could make various assertions on that matter. I will give him what is in the brief before me, which has some strong validity. Article 125 of the treaty provides a clear assurance that no member state shall receive a bailout. However, it does not preclude the EU or member states from providing loans to one other. The EU’s balance of payments facility has already provided medium-term financial assistance to a number of member states. Article 2(1) of the EFSM regulation makes it clear that the financial assistance it envisages is strictly confined to either a loan or a credit, so that would need to be paid back. That is the explanation. I am a little worried about the straightness or otherwise of my face, yet that makes reasonable sense to me. It has been a matter of lively debate in other countries, such as in the Bundestag, but that is the answer that I have to his question.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, surely the Minister must agree that when a loan is not repaid it becomes a commitment?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

All I can say is that this is how the debate has gone and these are the decisions that have been taken by those in the eurozone, which does not include us, who decided to go ahead and move from the EFSM to the ESM. The noble Lord has a different opinion of the financial aspects and is a financial expert of no small degree, so he may be right. However, that is not the view taken by the German Government or by the other Governments of the eurozone area.

My noble friend Lord Lamont also asked about the competitiveness pact. I can tell him that the latest draft of the pact makes it clear that:

“The Pact will fully respect the integrity of the Single Market”.

I am then advised that non-eurozone countries—such as us, among others—have been invited to join the pact and that we are assessing whether we should do so. I add that many of these points tonight point in the same direction and that we are really getting into the issues which we will be discussing on the new EU Bill tomorrow, when we shall have its Second Reading.

[Lord Liddle]

The noble Lord said that the Government were still considering whether to join the competitiveness pact. Is that the position: that this matter is still open?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is different from what the noble Lord said, so he is not quite right that that is the position. I was going on to say that under the provisions of the EU Bill, which has its Second Reading tomorrow, any question of a movement of competence or powers from the UK to the European Union arising from any of these things is subject to the most rigorous procedures—in many cases, a referendum procedure but certainly an Act of primary legislation—which make it more or less impossible for them to be, as it were, slipped by or to be involved in any kind of competence creep. That is the position in answer to my noble friend Lord Lamont.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, took a familiar position and did not think that we should be propping up the eurozone at all. I admire his concern for the German taxpayer, as he is clearly worried about our German friends and the amount of tax that they might have to pay if liabilities arise. He asked if we were setting up a transfer union. My judgment—this is from outside because we are not a member—would be that the eurozone members are not setting up a transfer union because that would require a far bigger budget at the centre than anything that operates under the present European Union organisation and rules. I think that the answer is no, but really that is a question that was posed by German Bundestag Members and answered by the German Government.

21:00

My noble friend Lord Newby was worried, as was the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about our role in the eurozone and whether it was becoming progressively weaker. I have described the conditions under which we will have a perfectly straightforward role in the design of the future ESM. I have to take a stand on the whole question of whether, as we stand outside the eurozone system, we are really weakening ourselves and putting ourselves in a disadvantageous position, as the noble Lord insists. I am not a rugby player but quite often standing outside the scrum places you in a much better position than being in the middle of it.

That is a much bigger issue that we will debate under the EU Bill: whether we are, as many experts assert, somehow marginal to the development of the European Union generally and of the eurozone or whether in fact we are one of the most active and influential players in the whole system by virtue of our excellent positioning. We shall talk about that during the whole process of the European Union Bill, and I would rather leave that bigger debate for tomorrow. It is there, though, behind all these issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether, if we join the eurozone, we will be part of the ESM. The answer is yes—if we were to join the eurozone. However, there is no proposition or intention under this Government to do so, so that is the country of hypothesis in a very big way. It is not going to happen under this Government. We are not going to join the eurozone.

The noble Lord talked about the passerelle procedure, as did the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It is perfectly correct that at the time of the Lisbon treaty—I cannot deny the fact that he remembers it well—I stood on the Benches opposite saying that I did not like the smell of it. Times changes, though, and here we are with the situation with which we are presented: a proposition comes forward that does not technically or indeed actually involve the United Kingdom, and the passerelle procedure is used. He will learn, and I am sure that this will be to his satisfaction in the days ahead, that under the new EU Bill very rigorous controls are going to be applied where there is any suggestion of a movement of power or competence from the UK to the EU under the passerelle procedure, any other ratchet procedures or any other treaty-change procedures proposed in future by the European Union or even by the British Government.

The noble Lord asked what we are getting in exchange. In my opening remarks I covered the two considerable successes that the Prime Minister secured, one of which, I have said repeatedly, is that we are getting out from under the EFSM liability. So we got something in exchange.

Is a stable eurozone really in our interests? The noble Lord did not think that it was, but of course markets think that it is. When the eurozone has run into major troubles in the recent past and when measures have been taken to try to address the troubles of the future, one can see the markets reflecting precisely those trends: they go down if they feel that the eurozone is in deep trouble and go upwards, or strengthen, when they see some kind of efforts being made to stabilise it. Markets think that it is in our interests, even if the noble Lord does not.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, came back to the issue of loss of influence. We dealt with participation in the future design of the ESM. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also took the view that we are somehow marginal. This is a very familiar theme. I always think that there is an element of defeatism in it. It implies that unless we go along with the mob, move with the crowd and are tucked into the system, we will somehow lose influence. Past experience over many years and future prospects in the totally new international landscape do not point in that direction. It portrays a yesterday view of how blocs such as the European Union or the Atlantic community, or superpowers such as America, operated in the 20th century. We are not in that century any more; we are not within that distribution of power. Different modalities apply and we are in a different paradigm. I shall argue that in much more detail when we come to the EU Bill tomorrow, in Committee and on Report. I have dealt with all the issues, although certainly not to the satisfaction of all.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, I want the eurozone to succeed. That is why I was particularly concerned about the structure of the ESM, as agreed last weekend. I asked several rather technical questions about that. I am content if the noble Lord does not feel that it is appropriate to answer those questions this evening, but I wonder if he would undertake to write to me and answer them.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I will undertake to write if I can get hold of the propositions that the noble Lord is asking about. If he is asking me to describe exactly how the ESM will work, I cannot yet do so because it has not been designed. We are taking a step towards the point where design of the ESM can begin. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would rather we did not take that step forward. However, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who is extremely expert in this field, and his party want this to go ahead. We should take this first step. I know I will not be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, in describing the exact design of the ESM system because the mechanism is under construction.

The noble Lord also had some fun—it was rather enjoyable—by asking how we could hold two views that he believed to be contradictory. One is that the ESM would directly benefit the UK or, to put it negatively, that failure to go ahead with the ESM would greatly damage the UK. At the same time, we were not involved in it. The remark of, I think, an American philosopher passed through my mind: the mark of an intelligent mind is to be able to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time. It may be that it is the mark of an intelligent Government to do the same. It is of course possible to argue, as I have this evening and I stand by it, that standing in the way of this next step is standing in the way of a step that may lead to better things and greater stability for the eurozone. We judge, contrary to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that this is an improvement and is good for the British economy, British prosperity and the British people.

That is not the same as saying that we are involved in the powers, competencies and arrangements of the ESM. We are not. We have been in the EFSM and we were liable. We will cease to be liable in the future, once we can get this system in place. The first step is now required and it is one that the Prime Minister wishes to take, quite rightly, in the interests of this nation at the European Council meeting at the end of this week.

There will be, I repeat, a second opportunity to debate this treaty change during ratification, in line with the provisions of the EU Bill once it becomes law. Your Lordships will be addressing their minds to it at Second Reading tomorrow. Under the EU Bill, all treaty changes require primary legislation to be ratified, so this is not the end of the matter by any means. It is a start and it is a good start—the right start in the interests of this nation.

Motion agreed.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (2nd Day) (Continued)

21:10

Amendment 18

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

18: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (5)

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, Amendment 18 would remove the flexibility for the Prime Minister to have the general election up to two months earlier or two months later than the five-year term. Amendments 22 and 23 in my name would delete just the power to call the general election two months earlier.

I thought it was important that we should have the opportunity to scrutinise this provision. In the Explanatory Notes, the Government explain that they have put this in,

“to accommodate short term crises or other conditions which might make it inappropriate to hold the election on the scheduled date, for example, a repeat of the foot and mouth crisis which led to the postponement of the local elections in 2001”.

One can see that there could be some sense in allowing for such possibilities but I wonder how carefully the Government have thought this provision through. The foot and mouth epidemic ran for some considerable time and it was possible for the Government to react in the way that they did in postponing the local elections in that year. However, could other disasters be anticipated so that the Prime Minister would know that he needed to call a general election earlier than the prescribed date or, indeed, later? Might not the power to call a general election two months earlier be open to abuse? I am not suggesting that this Government would abuse it but we are legislating for the indefinite future.

A Government might anticipate disastrous figures that were about to be published. I seem to remember that Harold Wilson was of the view that he lost the election in June 1970 because there were bad trade figures—something to do with airplanes, if I remember aright. Indeed, this Government might anticipate that some terrible figures might come out on unemployment or they might anticipate that there was going to be a major social protest, as is due to occur next Saturday. As time goes on and the Government pursue their deflationary and contractionary policies more and more ruthlessly, who is to say what protests may not emerge? Therefore, the Government might think that it was not expedient to hold an election when they were liable to encounter such expressions of public opinion and might contrive an excuse to get the election in just a bit ahead of the unfortunate event that they anticipate. Might not the power to defer the general election by up to two months equally be capable of abuse? A crisis might comprise the governing parties doing badly in the opinion polls and the turkeys wanting to postpone Christmas.

Should not the clause be amended? If the Government have a majority in both Houses, I worry that they will very easily secure their majority for the order to bring the election forward or to postpone it. We need to tighten up these provisions. I suggest that we should take out entirely the provision for the Prime Minister to bring the general election forward by two months. Amendments 22 and 23 would do that. We should remove that temptation to manipulate the arrangements. We should also tighten up the drafting to specify the kind of circumstances that would constitute a genuine crisis and justify the postponement of the election by a couple of months—perhaps as a result of an epidemic, a natural disaster or the outbreak of war; although our warrior Prime Minister might be tempted to declare another no-fly zone over Brussels to attract the Eurosceptic vote and achieve some kind of Falklands effect. You never know.

Amendment 24, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, indeed attempts to address this problem. I suspect that his amendment is not stringent enough. It is expressed with a high level of generalisation and may need to be amplified and expressed in greater detail. The Liberal Democrat amendment, Amendment 25, also seeks to address this problem, but would drag in the Speaker and require a super-majority of two-thirds. Those would certainly be safeguards against abuse, but there are other difficulties with that. The Government’s amendment, Amendment 26, states that the Prime Minister must give reasons when he lays the order, but that would add nothing in practice. The Prime Minister is hardly going to lay the order and say to Parliament, “I am not going to tell you why”.

These provisions need further thought and tightening up. If the Government cannot satisfy the House today, we may need to revisit this issue on Report. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes)]

Perhaps I may point out that if the amendment were to be agreed, I could not then call Amendments 20 to 24, by reason of pre-emption.

21:15

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to remove the words “earlier or” in order to press the Government as to the circumstances they believed could possibly arise that would make it necessary to bring forward a general election by up to two months. I can understand delaying an election, for reasons that I shall come on to, but I am not sure to what extent one could anticipate a situation, presumably a crisis, that would justify an early election. There may be such circumstances and, if there are, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister as to what they are.

However, I wish to devote my principal comments to Amendment 24, to which the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, referred, which stands in my name. The amendment deals with an important point of principle that distinguishes it from the rest of the Bill. Under the Parliament Act 1911, the maximum duration of a Parliament is set at five years. Within that period, the Prime Minister may exercise his discretion to advise the monarch to dissolve Parliament, or he may be forced to resign or request a Dissolution in the event of the House of Commons passing a vote of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. The principal purpose of the Bill is to remove the Prime Minister’s discretion within that five-year period. As the law stands, it is not within the Prime Minister’s discretion to advise Her Majesty to extend the life of a Parliament beyond five years. An extension requires an Act of Parliament, and such an extension has been treated as exceptional. That is why this Bill is subject to the Parliament Act, and falls into that category because of the provisions of subsection (5). The only occasions on which extensions have been made by statute have been during wartime. During the Second World War, parliamentary elections were postponed on an annual basis by a Prolongation of Parliament Act.

Subsection (5) thus engages an important principle that is not engaged by the rest of the Bill. Whether or not we have a flexible or semi-fixed maximum term is not relevant to the issue raised here. The question is whether we should permit the term itself to be breached. The importance of the principle is in effect conceded by the Government in Amendment 26. That recognises that the Prime Minister must make clear the reasons for seeking to change the date of the election. My amendment seeks to define the reasons.

The Elections Act 2001 was enacted in order to delay the local elections of that year because of the foot and mouth crisis. During Second Reading of the Bill, I said that we needed to generate clear criteria that would justify the postponement of elections. I advanced four criteria that must be met in order for Parliament to postpone an election. First, there must be a clear and recognised national crisis. Secondly, there must be a situation that affects the capacity to conduct the election. Thirdly, there must be an agreement between the parties that there is a case for delay. Finally, there must be proper parliamentary debate. Although there may be a case for speed, it should not be at the expense of parliamentary scrutiny. All four conditions were met in wartime and in 2001.

Those criteria should apply to any attempt to postpone elections. I appreciate that in the context of this Bill, the period involved is short. It is not equivalent to what was undertaken in wartime, although it is on a par with the situation in 2001. In the war and the foot and mouth crisis, elections were postponed through primary legislation. Here, provision is made for a postponement through secondary legislation. That will be debated, but it is not on a par with what is possible with a Bill. If subsection (5) is to remain, any exercise of the power to postpone an election must be on the basis of the criteria that I detailed.

My amendment provides that:

“The Prime Minister shall only lay an order … when he … is satisfied that there is a situation that renders holding an election”,

within the set term,

“impractical or injurious to the economic, social or public health of the nation or a part thereof”.

The Government's Amendment 26 provides that the Prime Minister must state his reasons for proposing a change of polling day when laying a draft order before Parliament. However, it leaves open the possibility, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, of the Prime Minister proffering a reason that is politically acceptable to a government majority but that does not meet what I regard as the necessary criteria for taking such a serious step.

I suspect that the Minister will remind us, as he did earlier, that at the moment there may be more than five years between general elections. I appreciate that two months may not seem an exceptional period of time; but eight weeks can make a significant difference to electoral fortunes, and a fundamental issue of principle is engaged by this provision. That is why I regard my amendment as necessary if subsection (5) is to remain in the Bill. I appreciate and support government Amendment 26, but I consider it necessary but not sufficient. More stringent constraints must be built in to the Bill. I believe that the choice is either to accept Amendment 24 or to omit subsection (5). The Bill cannot remain as presently worded.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I will speak first in support of the principle behind Amendments 22 and 23, tabled by my noble friend Lord Norton and by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is not with us this evening. The amendments deal exclusively with the power of the Prime Minister to bring forward the date of the general election by two months. I speak on the basis that I have yet to hear any substantive or convincing reason for giving this power to a Prime Minister in a context in which we are supposed to be taking away from the Prime Minister the power to determine the date of a general election.

I cannot see how one could anticipate unforeseen and extraordinary circumstances that will occur in two months’ time, and thereby justify bringing forward an election by two months in order to avoid the unforeseen and extraordinary event. It was said that Nancy Reagan used her knowledge of astrology to influence the timing of some of President Reagan's decisions; I do not believe that our constitutional principles should be based on star gazing and prophecies about future disasters. If we can foresee such an event and there are extraordinary reasons for bringing forward an election by two months, there are procedures in the Bill that will let Parliament decide to do that. I believe fundamentally that the power to bring forward an election by two months, if it is necessary, should lie with Parliament and not with the Prime Minister, and that a change to the five-year rule should be made only when there is a transparent and justifiable reason that can be properly debated and considered in Parliament.

I recognise that there is a much stronger case for saying that it may sometimes be necessary to postpone an election by two months, as effectively happened in 2001 with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Therefore, I am not convinced that it is right to remove completely the flexibility for a two-month delay, as proposed in Amendment 18 by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth.

With my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Marks, I have suggested in Amendment 25 that a two-month delay, if necessary, should be subject to a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons and a majority in this place. We believe that that brings in sufficient safeguards to prevent a Prime Minister abusing his power, which is the principal intention in the Bill.

We note that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is attempting in Amendment 24, as he has just said, to put a legal restriction on the use of the Prime Minister’s power to vary polling day to situations where it would be impossible to hold an election because it would be,

“impractical or injurious to the economic, social or public health of the nation or a part thereof”.

However, it seems to me that we might get into a very lengthy and quite detailed legal argument about what constitutes such circumstances. In our opinion, it is better to leave to Parliament’s discretion the question of what circumstances are appropriate. I am confident that such support would have been forthcoming in the case of a big national crisis, such as the foot and mouth epidemic of 2001, and I hope that during the passage of this Bill the Government will be able to accept that principle.

To my mind, it is better to subject the power in Clause 1 to vary polling day to a political restriction, requiring political consensus, than to a potential legal argument that may leave polling day to be decided in the courts rather than in Parliament. I accept that the question of whether Amendment 24 or Amendment 25 provides the best safeguard against the misuse of power to vary polling day is a matter of debate, but I think that noble Lords will be very attracted to one option or the other. I also believe that many of us will agree that the potential prime ministerial power to bring forward an election by two months should simply not remain in the Bill.

In conclusion, it seems that there is a fundamental flaw in the logic of this part of the Bill in relation to varying the date of elections. I say that because it makes no provision for varying the fixed date of the local council elections. As we are legislating for general elections to be held in the first week of May, and as council elections every year in much of the country are held on the first Thursday in May, if it were necessary for whatever reason to vary the date of the general election, surely it would be equally necessary to vary the date of the local council elections. There are of course provisions to vary the date of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly elections but only by one month. Therefore, why should the Westminster general election be varied by perhaps two months when elections in Scotland or Wales can be varied by only one month?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for very effectively pointing out one of the problems of this Bill. Can he also contemplate the position that would exist with elections to this Chamber? Would they be on a fixed-term basis? Would they all be on the same day? Could they be moved, and on what basis would they be moved? Would it be two weeks or two months forward or two months later? Would that not be an additional complication?

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I have absolutely no doubt that that precise matter will be the subject of considerable scrutiny during the passage of the Lords reform Bill in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill and in the Joint Committee of both Houses.

However, for the moment we are dealing with the legislation as it is, and legislation at the moment provides for council elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every year. Therefore, it seems quite illogical for the Government to argue that we may need to vary the date of the general election and to give exclusive power to the Prime Minister to vary the date of a general election by two months when the council elections will not be varied except, as in 2001, by primary legislation. The Government accept that primary legislation can vary the date of the council elections. Therefore, primary legislation could, if necessary, vary the polling date of the general election.

The Bill could provide for a more sensible mechanism for varying the polling day in general elections by requiring any such variation to have a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons and a majority in this place.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Lord, for whom I have great respect, having known him for a long time, makes a very good point. However, I was trying to make the point that, by legislating piecemeal on these constitutional matters, a lot of problems are building up, just as he has described, and those problems are going to apply a fortiori—I am not sure whether that is exactly the right term—or almost ad infinitum when we come to legislate for House of Lords reform. Does that not point to the fact that it is very unwise to introduce constitutional legislation in this piecemeal manner?

21:30

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, not long ago the noble Lord argued quite passionately that it was too much for your Lordships to consider together the two items of the voting system for Westminster and constituency boundaries. If he is now suggesting that the alternative to piecemeal legislation would have been a more comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with those two issues and the issues of fixed-term Parliaments and House of Lords reform, he is rather contradicting the argument that he made not very long ago.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was not drawn by the somewhat mischievous question of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. Many of us hope that it will be a very long time indeed before we debate elections of any sort to the Second Chamber. When that day comes, we hope that those proposals, whatever they may be, will be seen off.

For the first time, I find myself almost wholly in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in the substance of his speech proposing the amendment. As he says, it seems quite extraordinary that, in a Bill which is supposed to be clipping the wings of the Prime Minister, we should be giving the Prime Minister such tremendous power. Unless we are to appoint a soothsayer to the Prime Minister—“Beware the Ides of March”—for the life of me, I do not see that any Prime Minister could conceivably be able to forecast so accurately that he could bring forward the date of an election by two months. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has said and as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Norton have indicated, that should certainly be deleted from the Bill.

On the postponement of an election, one can understand that there could be a great national emergency or tragedy—one sincerely hopes that there will not be—when it would be quite improper, totally insensitive and wrong to plough ahead with a general election on a specific day. I will not rehearse the sort of things that could happen but we have talked about the foot and mouth crisis of 2001. I was one of those in the other place who strongly supported Prime Minister Blair when he came to the House and proposed that the local elections should be postponed. That was entirely right. God forbid that there should be some disaster like 9/11, but in such circumstances one understands that it would be right to postpone the date of an election.

It is important that the spirit of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norton should be taken on board by the Government and that there should be a clear specification of the sort of circumstances. I also think it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has said that such a proposal should be put to and approved by both Houses of Parliament. I was delighted that he made that point so clearly and forcefully. Of course, we shall not be voting on this tonight but I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness will be able to give us a very positive and encouraging reply. He is a man of infinite resource and he is always genial and helpful to the House, but if he could not give us a real promise on this point of significant change to the current wording in the Bill, then I think on Report there would be amendments which many of us would feel obliged to support.

[Lord Desai]

My Lords, I have already raised my worries about the extension power that a Prime Minister has beyond five years. On this group of amendments I am aware that there is a problem, but I am not as worried as my noble friend Lord Howarth about the Prime Minister's ability to go to the country earlier than five years. I do not mind that.

I very much worry about the two-month extension beyond the five years. It would be very reassuring if the Minister took away, for example, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and produced a schedule of possible circumstances. I know that nothing is certain—there can always be the black swan which we cannot anticipate—but if we were told under what circumstances a Prime Minister could be permitted to go to Parliament about a postponement, that would put my mind at rest.

In a sense, this power goes beyond the 1911 Act, and we should take it very seriously. I calculate that, given the current date of election in the Bill, there will be 61 days in the two-month delay; 61 is not a perfect multiple of seven, so the Prime Minister may be tempted to go for 63 days. One can go on like that. We need some idea of the circumstances in which a Prime Minister could claim.

Secondly, as the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Cormack, said, the provision should be brought to both Houses of Parliament. We have a constitutional position in this question, and it should not be left to the other place alone. I can envisage circumstances under which a Government with a two-thirds majority could arbitrarily give themselves authority to extend the election for two months. I would be very worried about that.

We should have safeguards in the Bill to make sure that both Houses are consulted, that we know the possible circumstances under which the Prime Minister can exercise the power and that we can be certain that such powers will be used only in exceptional circumstances.

[Lord Bach]

That was a most interesting, if short, debate on an important series of points. From the Front Bench, I thank all those who have taken part and who have drafted and spoken to their amendments.

I will be very short. The case has been made out that an earlier calling of an election should not be in the Bill at all. I very much look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, explaining to us the circumstances in which that might be even feasible under a fixed-term Parliament. I am absolutely with those who have spoken on that and tabled amendments on it.

As for postponement, the Committee should be grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Rennard, and others on those Benches who have tabled Amendments 24 and 25. We see the strength of what they argue. I just add one caveat and invite them, before we get to Report—because this is a very important matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, and might well be divided on then—to see whether their wording is absolutely right. I am sure that they intend to.

In 2005, under our present system and four years into a Parliament—not five years into a five-year fixed Parliament—his Holiness the Pope died. As I understand it, the general election plan for a certain date was postponed for a week because of that fact. No doubt various considerations were thought about very carefully: some people were grieving; others had things on their mind. That was considered and made public—it was not hidden away by politicians as a calculation.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, in my recollection of 2005, the general election happened on the same day as the council elections, which had been agreed and planned for years. There was no postponement in 2005, not even by one week.

[Lord Bach]

My understanding is—and if I am factually wrong of course I apologise—that all elections were put back one week in that year for that reason. I use it by way of example if it is not factually correct. In other words, if something has happened that is important to many millions of potential voters, does it fall in to Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton? If it does not, should some account be made for such unforeseen circumstances that might affect turnout or a number of issues? That may not be the best example, but one can think of other examples of the same kind.

[Lord Tyler]

Is that not a very good argument for adopting the solution that we are proposing that it should then be a political decision and that we do not try to foresee unforeseen circumstances? I speak as somebody who fought a by-election at the height of the Falklands war. That was unforeseen, but I did not think that that was an improper occasion to hold an election. What was significant about 2001 and foot and mouth was that it was impractical to ask people to go to the poll in large areas of the country, including my own. That was what was particular about those circumstances. Therefore, I think the solution that we are proposing from these Benches is preferable. A political consensus across the two Houses of Parliament is preferable to trying to write in advance circumstances that are by nature unforeseen.

[Lord Bach]

The Committee will see the powerful nature of the argument the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, makes, but whether that absolutely precludes some amendment of the type that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has put before the Committee tonight, I am not so certain. To have both would be a kind of double of lock that would not exist if we just relied on Parliament in this instance. There may be other instances that are not covered by Amendment 24 that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, might want to consider. That is our position at the moment. We are slightly sceptical that the solution has yet been found.

How wonderful it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in such fighting form on this Bill. We missed that fighting quality so much in the weeks and months that we spent on the previous Bill. Keep it up.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Rennard, with his spirit on the previous Bill, managed to get some concessions out of the Government. Who knows what might happen?

Before addressing the amendments that have been spoken to in this group, I shall briefly speak to Amendment 26, which is a government amendment and implements a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In common with the other amendments in this group, it concerns Clause 1(5), which confers a power on the Prime Minister to vary the date of a general election by up to two months earlier or later by order, subject to the affirmative procedure.

I am sure the House will be grateful to the committee for the careful scrutiny it generally gives to legislation but has specifically given to the Bill. In its report, the committee concluded that the delegated power taken in Clause 1 was not inappropriate in principle and recommended that, when seeking to vary the date of an election under the power in Clause 1(5), a Prime Minister must lay a statement before both Houses setting out the reasons for proposing the variance of the date.

The committee itself recognised that it would be unrealistic to specify a constraint which would embrace all the possible circumstances in which it would be appropriate to change the polling day. Instead, this is why the committee focused on the importance of ensuring that each House is fully aware of the reasons why the Prime Minister has proposed changing the polling day. That is an approach with which the Government agree. I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to hear that the amendment implements the committee’s recommendation and provides that a statement must be laid before both Houses of Parliament setting out the reasons for proposing a change to the date of a scheduled general election. I certainly urge your Lordships to accept this amendment when the time comes.

21:45

When the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, moved his amendment, he said, absolutely properly, that the powers in the Bill are important and that it is important in turn that they are scrutinised. His amendment would omit the order-making power from Clause 1(5), which allows for a Prime Minister to vary the date of a scheduled general election. The noble Lord clearly considers that in spite of the Delegated Powers Committee’s conclusion that the power was not inappropriate in principle, he is probing whether it is desirable to have this order-making power at all. I will set out to noble Lords why the Government consider it proper and necessary to have such a power.

I do not think there is any doubt that the expectation is that Parliaments should last only five years and that elections will happen on the first Thursday in May but, as has been alluded to in the debate, there can be short-term crises that make it impracticable to hold an election on that date. The outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001 is the example that is very often given, when it was necessary to delay the local elections in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that were scheduled to take place in May. De facto it delayed the general election, although the fact that we were not up against the quinquennium meant that there was no need for any legislation; the Prime Minister simply delayed a date that had been widely expected. Foot and mouth obviously could not have been foreseen.

Clause 1(5) provides that the Prime Minister will be able to alter the date of a general election to a day that is no more than two months earlier or later. Crucially, this can be done only by an order that requires the affirmative resolution of both Houses. In that respect, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack, who emphasised the importance of both Houses being involved. If, however, your Lordships accept the Government’s amendment in this group, the Prime Minister will also be obliged to lay a statement before both Houses setting out the reasons for proposing the variance of the date. Without this power, primary legislation would have to be passed, as indeed happened with the local elections in 2001, if the date of the scheduled election had to be moved.

Noble Lords might well ask why it would not be more appropriate for primary legislation to be taken forward in these circumstances. The difficulty with primary legislation is that it could move the date of a scheduled election in an emergency. Provided that it had the consent of your Lordships' House, it could move such an election by more than two months. The fact that we are talking about a situation in which we are up against only the fixed term of five years means that we do not think it appropriate to bring about circumstances in which primary legislation could be brought forward that would take the lifetime of the Parliament more than two months beyond the five years. Therefore we see a limited order-making power that requires the approval of both Houses as appropriate in these circumstances.

It is also important to note that the power might well have to be used at very short notice, when even an emergency Bill might not be possible. If we are to establish fixed terms, it is right that we put into place procedures that can be used to permit a very modest degree of flexibility, in the same way that procedures were put into legislation for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, although those Parliaments do not determine that themselves. In the case of the Scottish Parliament it is the Presiding Officer, and in the case of the Welsh Assembly it is the Secretary of State for Wales. I cannot immediately remember the position in Northern Ireland, but the matter is not in the hands of its parliament.

It is important to emphasise that we are proposing not a wide-ranging Henry VIII-type of order-making power but a power that is very limited. As I have said, I hope that the amendment that the Government have tabled will help to reassure noble Lords about the circumstances in which the power could be used.

I do not think that Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was spoken to.

Amendments 22 and 23, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Norton and supported by my noble friend Lord Rennard. The amendments would alter the power in Clause 1 so that an order to vary the date of election could be made only to defer an election and not to bring it forward. There was clearly a deferral in the foot and mouth example, but it is not inconceivable that a general election might need to be brought forward if we had prior warning of a significant event of national importance, during which time it would not be sensible to hold a general election. My noble friend Lord Rennard pressed me on this at Second Reading and I wholly acknowledge that I have yet to come up with a credible event—although I could think of some incredible ones—that would trigger this power. Nevertheless, a power such as this is to deal with crisis contingencies and, very often, that would be in the very circumstances that you cannot foresee—perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, a “black swan” event. I would wager a bet that if these amendments were carried and the “earlier or” was deleted, at some stage in the next 15 to 20 years an event would happen to make one say, “If only that had stayed in”.

It is sensible to put in the same principle of flexibility that exists with regard to the devolved institutions. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that that is counterbalanced with safeguards—the time limit on the power, the requirement to provide reasons and the agreement not just of the other place but of your Lordships’ House. If this amendment should be agreed, it is true that a scenario could arise where it is accepted that the election has to be brought forward. Obviously, under the powers in Clause 2, it would be possible for the House of Commons to resolve, with a two-thirds majority, to dissolve early. My concern about that is that it would not involve your Lordships’ House. We are trying to make an arrangement that would involve both Houses. In this Bill we are setting out procedures that we hope will become an established part of our constitutional framework.

However, I would say to noble Lords who have spoken about this that I am prepared to go away and consider whether I could bring forward concrete examples as to where the power to have an earlier election might be appropriate. In turn, I would ask your Lordships who support this to consider whether, given the safeguards and the fact that very often the unforeseen does happen—the so-called “black swan” event—any damage is done by having this provision in the Bill and whether it may prove to be useful in the event of an unforeseen circumstance. I certainly am willing to consider this further.

Amendment 24, in the name of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, indicates that the Prime Minister could not lay an order to vary the date of a scheduled general election by up to two months earlier or later unless he is satisfied that there is a situation that renders holding a scheduled general election,

“impractical or injurious to the economic, social or public health of the nation or a part thereof”.

I fully acknowledge the point made by my noble friend that this is an important clause. Its constitutional significance is certainly not lost on the Government or on your Lordships’ House. It could extend the length of the Parliament beyond the quinquennium and, hence, this Bill would not be subject to the Parliament Act. However, in the light of the amendment that the Government have tabled, I question whether Amendment 24 is necessary.

I share the recollection of my noble friend Lord Rennard: I do not think that the date of the 2005 election was changed. But, putting that to one side, I agree that the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, of the death of Pope John Paul II—an event of international significance—is the kind of event that could in certain circumstances prompt a change. We are talking about a period of up to two months, but it does not need to be as long as two months. It may be thought fitting to change the date by one or two weeks in these circumstances. That would not necessarily fall into any of the categories set out by my noble friend. Equally, it is almost inevitable that the statement that the Prime Minister would have to make to set out his reasons for moving a general election would in all likelihood reflect the kind of concerns that my noble friend sets out in his amendment.

I do not usually take drafting points at this stage but in this situation my concern goes further than just a drafting point. It may be something on which my noble friend would wish to reflect; I would be happy to discuss it. This goes beyond a simple drafting issue because it begs the basic question as to the basis on which a Prime Minister would come to the view that holding a scheduled general election would be,

“impractical or injurious to the economic, social or public health of the nation or a part thereof”.

What criteria would the Prime Minister be expected to bear in mind? What is the threshold for whether a scheduled election should be held or not? Could it result in a threshold that is too low because it would enable an election to be moved because of some sort of administrative problem? Is it a decision that conceivably could be subject to judicial review?

The other point is that the test is that of whether holding the election is injurious. It is hard to see where we might be trying to grapple with injury caused by an election as opposed to circumstances that would cause difficulty for the election. The foot and mouth outbreak was such an example. The election was not going to cause any difficulty, but it would have been difficult to hold the election because in certain parts of the country the regulations in place meant that people could not go out and canvass. I would ask my noble friend to reflect on whether the criteria may have got things the wrong way around, or whether this may be a “both/and” point in that there may be circumstances in which holding the election could be damaging but there may also be circumstances that make holding an election difficult.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

That is why the amendment says “impractical or”, not “impractical and”.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it still refers to the fact of the holding of the election being,

“impractical or injurious to the economic, social or public health of the nation”,

as opposed to external circumstances that, while not being injurious to the election, certainly could make it impractical to hold it. However, I do not think that my noble friend’s amendment covers the circumstances where the external event could make it difficult actually to hold the election. I think that that is more than just a technical point, quite apart from what criteria the Prime Minister would use and what the threshold would be.

I have raised these points because they go beyond normal technical difficulties. They also illustrate the difficulties that arise when you devise formulas to try to address situations that, by their very nature, are unforeseeable. The technical matters point to the general principle agreed by your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It said that,

“it would be unrealistic to specify in the Bill a constraint which would embrace all of the possible circumstances in which it might seem appropriate to change a polling day”.

Problems arise when you start specifying circumstances. You can bet your life that a circumstance will come along that is glaringly obvious to everyone but was not covered when the legislation was going through. The greatest safeguard on the use of the power is the fact that it must be approved by both Houses and must be accompanied by a statement setting out the reason for seeking to vary the date of the general election.

That brings me to Amendment 25, tabled in the names of my noble friends Lord Rennard, Lord Tyler and Lord Marks. It provides that an order made by the Prime Minister under Clause 1(5) would have to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the other place. It also provides a role for the Speaker to certify whether the order had been approved by a Division and had the support of at least two-thirds of all MPs. I recognise the logic behind the amendment, as the Bill provides that a vote on an early Dissolution of the other place would require the support of at least two-thirds of all MPs. That measure is designed to ensure that an early general election can take place where there is cross-party consensus, a point emphasised by my noble friend. However, the order-making power in Clause 1(5) is somewhat different from the power for early Dissolution. Unlike the power to force an early Dissolution, it is a power to vary a scheduled general election and is limited in terms of time. Also, my noble friend may have sought to put in something to avoid abuse, but I believe that the circumstances are such that that would not occur, given the safeguards in place.

However, I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying that this House would still have a role to play. As I understood it from some of the things that he said at Second Reading, it was not clear whether this House would still have a role to play. Given the comments that have been made by a number of noble Lords, that is important. In the light of that, I want to consider the amendment. I will consider, too, the fact that this provision would again involve the Speaker of the other place. That has raised issues where it appears later in the Bill, so I would want to reflect before agreeing to something that again would give the Speaker a role. It is something that I would want to have an opportunity to discuss with the authorities in the other place. Therefore I am certainly willing to consider it in the light of his assurance that this House would still have a role to play and what the implications might be for the other place.

The other point that my noble friend made was on local elections. There might be circumstances where it would be desirable to move a general election date but where local elections could continue as scheduled. However, and more important, this Bill focuses solely on what is strictly necessary to establish fixed-term Parliaments. To try to introduce other issues could lead to complications.

These are important issues and I hope that I have given assurances that the Government’s mind is not closed to them. I believe that there are safeguards in the Bill, which I hope will be added to by noble Lords agreeing to government Amendment 26. In the mean time, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, to withdraw his amendment.

22:00

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, this has been a thoughtful debate about what has been recognised on all sides of the Chamber as a genuine conundrum. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, drew our attention to the irony of a Bill that is intended, as he put it, to clip the wings of the Prime Minister actually proposing to confer on him the extraordinary additional power of extending the life of a Parliament beyond the five years that have been enshrined in legislation since 1911. That alone should give us pause and make us think pretty carefully about what we are doing. We all recognise that there is a significant decision to be made. I think that we all recognise, too, that there is a problem; there cannot be doubt about that. My amendment is intended only as a probing amendment. When I tabled an amendment proposing that subsection (5) be deleted, it was certainly not because I thought that this was a problem that we should ignore. We need if we can to provide satisfactorily for the contingencies that noble Lords have suggested could occur.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, with his characteristic lucidity and incisiveness, set out the criteria that he thought the House should have in mind as we frame this legislation. He desires to be rigorous. I suggest to him, as I did in my opening remarks, that his wording needs to be tightened up and made more rigorous, and not just in the technical drafting sense to which the Minister drew our attention. The noble Lord suggested that the choice was either to adopt the wording of his Amendment 24, perhaps strengthened, or to drop subsection (5), as Amendment 18 requires, and simply remove altogether from the legislation the power to bring forward or defer a general election in an emergency.

The noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Tyler and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, like the noble Lord, Lord Norton, commendably went further than I had done and tried to propose a constructive solution. Rather than trying to find wording that would encompass even in fairly general terms all the possible contingencies that ought to trigger such a power, they suggested a procedural device that, without attempting to anticipate all the varieties of emergency that could occur, would respond adequately to an emergency of that kind if it occurred. There is a lot of merit in that approach.

For reasons with which I shall not detain the Committee by explaining now, I have my worries about bringing in the Speaker on the lines that the noble Lords’ amendment proposes, but we shall talk about a Speaker’s certificate when we come to other amendments in due course. However, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was quite right to insist on the desirability of consistency in the legislation that determines this option not only for the Parliament of the UK but also for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and local government. My noble friend Lord Foulkes rightly drew attention to the possibility that, if we had an elected House of Lords, we would need equally to provide for such powers to apply in relation to elections to it. He rightly warned us once again of the dangers of engaging in piecemeal and ill prepared legislation on the constitution.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his exceptionally full and reflective response to the debate. He has brought forward government Amendment 26, which simply requires that, if the Prime Minister proposes an order to alter the date of the election in an emergency situation, he must set out his reasons. That is not sufficient. I know that the Government were encouraged to bring forward a remedy in these terms by the Select Committee on the Constitution, but this debate has shown that this Committee of the Whole House is not satisfied that simply requiring the Prime Minister to give reasons meets the needs of the case.

I am grateful for the willingness that the Minister has signified to think further about this issue and about how we can come to a better solution to the problem. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Amendments 19 to 25 not moved.

Amendment 26

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

26: Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) The draft laid before Parliament must be accompanied by a statement setting out the Prime Minister’s reasons for proposing the change in the polling day.”

Amendment 26 agreed.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed.

Clause 2 : Early parliamentary general elections

Amendment 27

Moved by

[Lord Norton of Louth]

27: Clause 2, page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (1)

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, Amendment 27 seeks to leave out subsection (1) of Clause 2. My purpose is to tease out the reasons for this provision.

Although this is termed the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, it is not a measure providing for fixed-term Parliaments. It stipulates a fixed term unless certain conditions are met. There may be deviations from the set term of five years under Clause 1(5) and Clause 2(1) and (2). The Bill thus seeks to move from a flexible to a semi-flexible or, if one prefers, a semi-fixed Parliament in terms of its duration within a maximum life of five years.

The Bill proposes two safety valve mechanisms enabling a parliamentary election to be held prematurely. One is the Dissolution Motion introduced by Clause 2(1) and the other is the vote of confidence covered in Clause 2(2). In evidence to the Constitution Committee, Professor Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, said that he was,

“slightly puzzled why the Government sees the need for a dual threshold”.

Although the committee concluded that it was appropriate to include two different safety mechanisms, I wish to probe why we need this particular mechanism.

I know the argument that this provision ensures that the House, in the event of some unbreakable deadlock, does not have to engineer a vote of no confidence in order to ensure an early election. However, the problem with this provision is that it sets the bar at a high level and, as a result, the Bill fails to deal with the situation where there has been a breakdown within the Government but the Opposition are not prepared to support a Dissolution Motion. The Opposition may not be able to muster enough votes to pass a Motion of no confidence, but they may find it politically advantageous not to vote for a Dissolution. If the Government resign without either a no confidence Motion or a Dissolution Motion having been passed, then the 14-day trigger is not engaged. We could have a period of instability, with no Government but with no election in prospect either. I appreciate the situation is unlikely but, as long as it is not impossible, we need to consider it.

I am not clear why there needs to be the two-thirds hurdle in the context of the Bill. I am familiar with the fact that some legislatures have a two-thirds provision, but to what extent does this exist in the context of a dual as opposed to a single safety valve? Is it not the case that the two-thirds provision in other legislatures applies more often than not in respect of a confidence Motion? Perhaps my noble and learned friend can tell us which other national legislatures utilise an extraordinary majority for the passage of a Dissolution Motion.

[Lord Empey]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. If my memory serves me correctly, the Northern Ireland Assembly needs 70 per cent of its Members to vote to bring the life of the Assembly to a conclusion, albeit subject to the assent of the Secretary of State.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

I choose my words carefully and refer solely to national legislatures. If we are to have two mechanisms for triggering an election, then we could usefully explore the alternatives to what it proposed. Do we need the subsection at all? In evidence to the Constitution Committee, David Howarth noted that if there is all-party agreement that a situation has arisen necessitating an early election, then it would be relatively straightforward to pass an amending Bill. If the measure was introduced for political advantage then this would, he argued, deny the measure the necessary broad support and it would make slow progress in the Lords.

Adopting such an approach would avoid the problems associated with the artificial hurdle created by the subsection. My view is that the most appropriate way to proceed, if we wish to remove the Prime Minister’s discretion as to when an election is to be held, is to provide that an early election is possible only if the House of Commons passes a vote of no confidence in the Government or if the Government resign and there is no prospect of another Government being formed. My amendments 35 and 38 seek to achieve that and I shall develop the arguments for those shortly. They overcome the problem I have identified with the Bill in respect of the Government resigning without having been defeated on a vote of confidence.

I know that the principal argument for this provision is that it is in the coalition agreement. The problem with that assertion is that the provision is not in the coalition agreement. The agreement said that a binding Motion would be introduced in the House of Commons and a Bill brought forward providing for a Dissolution Motion to be passed if 55 per cent of MPs voted for it. In the event, there has been no binding Motion and the extraordinary majority to pass a Dissolution Motion is now two-thirds of all MPs. We know from David Laws’s book, 22 Days in May, which has already been quite extensively quoted from, that the figure of 55 per cent was the product of political calculation. It is a threshold utilised by no other national legislature. Given that, the case for the subsection must rest on more than its inclusion in the coalition agreement. I am not convinced that the case for it relative to the alternatives is compelling. I beg to move.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I too, put my name to the amendment to remove the two-thirds provision. This was an improvisation when the coalition’s original proposal—that 55 per cent of Members of Parliament should be able to require an early general election—was greeted with widespread derision and, indeed, anger. It was noted, even before Mr Laws underlined it in his book, that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats together had 56 per cent of the votes in the House of Commons. The Liberal Democrats and Labour had less than 55 per cent, and so this deal would have guaranteed that Parliament could only be dissolved at the wish of both partners in the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition. They could not get away with that, so they built in the two-thirds requirement. They certainly did so with a continuing view of protecting their hold on office.

This two-thirds figure has not been adequately considered. It is argued in its support that no post-war Government have commanded two-thirds of the votes of the House of Commons, but it has also been noted that the National Government of 1931 did command two-thirds of the votes of the House of Commons. We cannot rule out the possibility that there could be another landslide general election. It is admittedly unlikely that one party could secure quite such a large proportion of seats in the House of Commons, but it is not inconceivable.

What is more reasonable to anticipate is that a new coalition could be formed. Perhaps this coalition could seduce other minority parties to join it. It would need only another 10 per cent of Members of Parliament to get to the magic figure required. This is a constitutional innovation of major significance that is quite unheralded, unconsulted upon and undebated by academics and the public. It is true that under its own standing orders the House of Commons does in certain situations stipulate that certain numbers of Members of Parliament must vote, for example, for a quorum or a closure. So it is not entirely novel as a principle of Commons procedure, but it is certainly novel constitutionally. If a super-majority is felt to be preferable, why does it have to be provided for in legislation? Could it not be provided for in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons? Indeed, why should we not accept—this is after all the status quo—that a simple majority for an early general election would be sufficient in the House of Commons?

22:15

If it is convenient to the House, I shall speak to Amendments 28 and 29 in the course of the same remarks, although if noble Lords wish those amendments to be debated in the separate group as is set down on the list, I shall defer to the wishes of the House. However, the subject is sufficiently germane.

Amendment 28 would allow a general election to occur on 51 per cent of the vote in the House of Commons—a majority of one. That is the status quo, although I am not aware that events have ever worked out like that. Of course, we would have to fear that a provision of that kind would be open to abuse by the coalition. However, I was always happy to trust the Prime Minister’s word. When he declared last May that he would not seek a solution before May 2015, I had no reason whatever to doubt his sincerity or integrity. That seemed quite sufficient; it was not actually necessary to legislate. We did not even need a binding resolution, let alone the contrivance of a requirement of a two-thirds majority.

Amendment 29 introduces another variant to assist noble Lords, I hope, to think through the implications of the Bill. It replaces the two-thirds requirement for an early Dissolution with a 75 per cent requirement. If there is to be a super-majority, should it not be big enough to ensure that even after a landslide victory the governing party could not in due course when it suited it seek an early election and obviate the purpose of this fixed-term Parliaments legislation to remove the power of the Prime Minister to determine the date of the election in his own and his party’s interests? It is not entirely unimaginable that there could be a landslide election that would produce a majority in excess of two-thirds. Noble Lords will recall that in October 1993, Kim Campbell, the Prime Minister of Canada and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, called an election. Her party suffered the most extraordinary defeat; previously, it had held 169 seats and after the election it held only two seats. She resigned and Jean Chrétien of the Liberals became Prime Minister and was then in office for 10 years. You never know what will happen and it is entirely possible that, if the coalition Government govern wisely and well and if we have a statesmanlike Budget on Wednesday and the land flows with milk and honey and there is a sustained boom and crime disappears from our country and the lion lies down with the lamb, after some years of this benign state of affairs the people of this country would be so reconciled to coalition government that they would enthusiastically vote in huge numbers for its recreation following the next election and that they would win a landslide victory. I do not think that it is going to happen, but we cannot rule out any even implausible contingency. However, dream as noble Lords opposite might, it is very unlikely that they would get beyond 75 per cent, as happened in Canada. So I think that that would be a safe limit to set.

More realistically, there might be another coalition in the future that is composed of bigger parties or of more parties so that its votes in the House of Commons would surpass the two-thirds. So I think that 75 per cent might be safer, and, of course, if the general mood of the House of Commons was that it was time for a general election, then a 75 per cent vote would indeed be obtainable.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I have slightly lost the noble Lord’s argument. Is he arguing in favour of a bare majority or a 75 per cent majority?

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I have two amendments, to enable the House to consider both possibilities. I am not sure that we need to legislate at all. We could simply proceed on the traditional basis that a 51 per cent vote was required. However, in the context of a Bill creating fixed-term Parliaments, we perhaps do have to specify in law that a majority of one would be sufficient to trigger an early general election. I am not very happy with that, but I am not very happy with the two-thirds requirement, for the reasons that I have indicated. Therefore, I have suggested that the House might like to consider a different figure to provide a safeguard against exploitation of this particular escape-hatch which would give the Government of the day an opportunity to escape from the ordinary provisions of the legislation on fixed-term Parliaments. For these reasons, I have tabled the amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, again, Mr Laws explains how we got here. But when you see how we got here, it is difficult to understand why we are here. Perhaps I may read a paragraph that has not yet been quoted:

“There was a debate for thirty minutes or so on arrangements for dissolving a parliament before the end of its five-year term. This was an issue which we raised, but William Hague soon realised that the main risk lay with the Conservatives. Without a super-majority for dissolution being required, the smaller party could leave the coalition and dissolve parliament almost at will”.

He continues:

“Huhne originally suggested that there should be a 66% threshold for dissolving parliament before its full term was up, in line with the situation in Scotland. George Osborne said he thought that 66% was rather high and that 55% or 60% was closer to the mark. After some work on Ed Llewelyn’s calculator, and consideration of by-election risks, it was decided that a 55% vote of MPs would be required to provide for a dissolution. This was just greater than the combined opposition and Lib Dem parliamentary parties, thereby safeguarding the Conservative position”.

It is absolutely plain from what Laws is saying there that they were trying to guard against Dissolution, including a no-confidence vote. There is no doubt about that, because he says:

“Without a super-majority for dissolution being required, the smaller party could leave the coalition and dissolve parliament almost at will”.

That must be referring to a vote of no confidence. It is therefore plain from Laws’ book that it was envisaged that you could not get rid of the Government with an ordinary vote of no confidence and that the only provision intended to allow for an early end—that is, before the five years—was if the super-majority was satisfied, and that could not be delivered by the Lib Dems coalescing with Labour.

I think that that was to be put into a binding resolution, whatever that may mean, in the House of Commons. Pressure was then placed on the Government in the public debate which followed, and they changed this in two respects: the figure of 56 per cent became two-thirds, and they agreed to a vote of no confidence as a way of getting rid of the Government. Why are they both there? Which two separate situations are they trying to cover? It looks as though the coalition agreed to the 56 per cent to prevent the possibility of being voted out on a vote of no confidence. I am pretty sure that that is what happened, but they were pushed off it by public pressure and had to agree to a vote of no confidence. They retained the super-majority as a fig leaf in order to try to give some justification for it. That is what Mr Laws’ book is suggesting. Could the Minister say whether I am wrong about that analysis? No other factual analysis is being offered for why we are in the extraordinarily unusual position where both a simple majority and a super-majority can get rid of the Government by way of a vote in the House of Commons. It looks as if the analysis that I have given is the reason.

We are entitled to an explanation for this. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who is respected throughout the House as a constitutional expert, is significant: no other national parliament has this extraordinary provision in it. If it is in there only because it was part of a negotiation that then got shot away by public pressure, why are the Government keeping it in? It is important that the noble and learned Lord gives us some information about it, because at the moment the only explanation on the record is the one that I have given. It is discreditable for the Government to reform our constitution simply on the basis that an idea that was floated in the coalition agreement got shot away but they kept it in, in order to preserve I am not sure what.

A second and separate point that the Minister needs to deal with is: what happens when the Government resign and no one else wants to form a Government? On the basis of the Bill, it appears—again, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has made this point and I have not heard an answer to it—that you have no Government and no Dissolution. I would be grateful to know what happens to our nation’s Government at that point.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Norton for opening up the debates on this clause, which raises important issues regarding the mechanisms that would trigger an early election or indeed a change of Government, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. It is important to recognise that there are two mechanisms that can trigger an early election: either a Dissolution on a 66 per cent majority—or, more accurately, with two-thirds of Members voting for it—or a vote of no confidence passed by a simple majority and, after 14 days, no Government having a vote of confidence. They are distinctive.

I cannot endorse the speculative analysis by the noble and learned Lord Falconer. He admitted that he was speculating—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I am not speculating. This is what a person who was there at the negotiations said. For the Minister to describe this analysis as speculative when he is not offering an alternative explanation is wholly unfair.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it will be obvious that the proposals in the Bill are not the ones described in the book. The noble and learned Lord asks us why we have the proposals that we do, and obviously he was speculating about why they are there. If I were presenting to the House a Bill that had a 55 per cent majority and that was it, that would be a reasonable basis on which to say, “This is how we arrived at 55 per cent”. Clearly, that is not what is proposed in the Bill, and I will address that in the course of my response to this debate.

Subsection (1) provides the House of Commons with a new power to vote for Dissolution following a process that I believe is robust and transparent. My noble friend has indicated that he has his own further amendments about what might follow, including the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about what would happen in the event of a Prime Minister resigning, and we will address these when we come to my noble friend’s amendments.

The point is that if there is a clear consensus that there should be an early general election, it would be nonsensical to force the other place to engineer a vote of no confidence, particularly where confidence in the Government is not necessarily the issue and may not be what is driving the need for an early election. We believe that it would not be right or proper to conjure up a vote of no confidence in these circumstances. That is why the Bill seeks to prevent that with our proposal for a two-thirds vote.

In the case of Germany, Governments have in the past had to engineer no-confidence votes even where there was a consensus in favour of an early general election, because there was no provision in its constitution analogous to the procedure for a Dissolution vote in this Bill. At that time there was no alternative to engineering a no-confidence vote.

22:29

My noble friend reasonably asked about other nations. I spotted what he said about national parliaments, as opposed to the devolved Parliament and Assemblies, which have a provision that is very similar to what is set out here. I am unable to answer now but if I get information I will certainly write to him. The point was made in an earlier debate by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that it is sometimes difficult to translate what happens in other countries to what happens here. This is where we reach a position that answers the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, about why we have two mechanisms. He is right about why the coalition agreement mentioned 55 per cent.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I understand what the Minister said earlier. Is he now saying that this is a product not of the coalition agreement but of some other arrangement?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I might be missing something somewhere. The coalition agreement referred to the 55 per cent that the noble and learned Lord has described. At the same time, he gave a plug to my right honourable friend’s book, for which I am sure he is very grateful. However, that is not in the Bill; I am describing what is in the Bill. Of course it is a product of the coalition. It is a coalition Bill that is before your Lordships’ House.

I recall sitting in this House during Questions and listening to many noble Lords on all sides of the House criticise that 55 per cent provision. The noble and learned Lord nods his head in agreement. It was a provision that received considerable criticism. There was a criticism that it meant a vote that could lead to a Dissolution. People asked about votes of no confidence. At the same time, there was the issue of whether there ought to be a higher majority to trigger a Dissolution automatically. The two mechanisms that provide the trigger in the Bill as it stands address the criticisms that were made. I make no apology for saying that the Government listened to the criticisms that were made, tried to take them on board and came forward with what is proposed here. It may be unique to the United Kingdom but it addresses some of the concerns.

We will come later to the issue of no-confidence votes but at present this House and—it is fair to say —other commentators and people in the other place said that there was an important point about the vote of no confidence on a simple majority having a consequence. The Government listened to that. Historically, there have been two possible outcomes. In 1924, when there was a vote of no confidence in Mr Baldwin’s Government, Mr Baldwin resigned and a new Government was formed under Ramsay MacDonald. In 1979, as has often been mentioned in our debates on this Bill, when Mr James Callaghan’s Government lost a vote of no confidence, he then proceeded to seek a Dissolution and an election was held.

When we come to the next part of this clause, that is what we will be discussing. We will no doubt debate what constitutes a no-confidence vote. We seek to reflect what has been the constitutional position of the outcome of a no-confidence vote on a simple majority. Equally, we took the view that there were circumstances in which it would be more appropriate, if there was a consensus that a Parliament should be brought to an end, to have a trigger mechanism that was more than a simple majority, such as a two-thirds majority.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I apologise for not having been here earlier but I have heard everything since my noble friend Lord Norton spoke. The Minister referred to 1979. Would he describe for the benefit of the Committee how the provisions of this legislation would apply to the conditions of 1979? If there had been a vote of no confidence in Mr Callaghan’s Government under the provisions of this Bill, would he have been able to wait a fortnight, give jobs to the Irish nationalists and re-form his Government, thereby avoiding an election?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Hypothetically, if he was able to do that, it could have happened. In a Parliament with less than six months to go, it is highly unlikely that that would have happened. There has to be a political reality. It was quite clear that that Government had run their course and there was a general view that an election was needed. Therefore, I think it highly unlikely that a new Government would have been formed, and no new Government having received a vote of confidence within 14 days there would have been a Dissolution. That is one set of circumstances. However, there ought not to be a vote of no confidence if that is not the reason behind the consensus that Parliament needs to come to an end and for there to be a general election. Rather than contrive a vote of no confidence, one should have it as a solution but with the threshold set at such a level that it cannot easily be obtained by a single party for political advantage.

In much of the noble and learned Lord’s speech at Second Reading, his main agony about this Bill was that it would be possible for a Government to abuse the procedure and seek a Dissolution, which would defeat the whole purpose of having fixed-term Parliaments. Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate that the Dissolution should be set at a level which has not been achieved by any governing party since the Second World War. I fully accept that we departed from the 55 per cent figure because that was clearly not going anywhere. It was roundly criticised in this House and, indeed, in other places. As I say, I make no apology for having listened to that criticism, reflected on it and come forward with a proposal which still maintains that there should be a vote which could trigger a Dissolution, but one where the percentage figure is much higher to the extent that it would not be achieved by one party alone. That is why that first trigger mechanism—the subject matter of this amendment—is there. The two-thirds majority that is proposed is the same majority required for a Dissolution vote in the devolved legislatures, as set out in the relevant legislation.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend but I think that three times now he has referred to a two-thirds majority. However, it is not a two-thirds majority because that would be two-thirds of the votes cast in the Division. This is two-thirds of the number of Members, including vacant seats. Will he set the record straight?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am happy to do so. I think that I corrected myself the first time I got it wrong. I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me of that. As I say, since the Second World War no Government have been able to command two-thirds of all the seats. This means that Parliament can choose to dissolve itself but Government cannot dissolve Parliament for their own political advantage.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked why the two-thirds requirement should not be set out in Standing Orders rather than in statute. The two-thirds requirement is set out in legislation as opposed to Standing Orders so that any change to the requirement would have to be made by fresh primary legislation, which would require the consent of both Houses of Parliament, whereas Standing Orders of the other place would require only one House of Parliament to determine that and probably could be amended or revoked by a single simple majority in the other place, and therefore could defeat the purpose of the measure. It is better to have the two-thirds vote set out in statute, which means that it has to be changed by statute. That would involve this House rather than the other place simply determining it by means of its own Standing Orders. It is not appropriate that a significant detail of reform affecting Parliament as a whole with implications for our prerogative should be amended by Standing Orders of one House of Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, very helpfully indicated that he would speak to his Amendments 28 and 29 at the same time. The first of those would omit the requirement for a two-thirds majority while the second would increase the figure to three-quarters of all MPs voting in favour of the measure instead of two-thirds. The reason why we are opposed to the simple majority—it would be a majority in that case—for the Dissolution is because it would undermine one of the purposes of the Bill: namely, establishing a fixed term and removing the Executive’s ability to decide when Parliament should be dissolved. Noble Lords may recall that at Second Reading mention was made of the late Lord Holme of Cheltenham and his analysis of arrangements whereby the Prime Minister can choose the timing of the election. Lord Holme described a general election as,

“a race in which the Prime Minister is allowed to approach it with his running shoes in one hand and his starting pistol in the other”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 1007.]

I have reflected why he would not have his running shoes on, but he would certainly have the starting pistol in his hands. Unfortunately, Amendment 28 of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, would preserve the Executive’s ability to decide when a Parliament was dissolved, by providing that a Dissolution motion could be passed by a simple majority.

At the other end of the scale, the noble Lord suggests a majority of 75 per cent of Members who vote. Again, it is not an unreasonable proposition, but I believe that, on balance, the threshold of two-thirds strikes the right balance in providing a safeguard against abuse of the power, while ensuring the effectiveness of the Bill’s provisions. This Parliament passed similar provisions in relation to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I have sought to explain why there are two mechanisms and how they are different. I indicated clearly that the 55 per cent originally proposed did not find favour. Therefore, it was only right and proper that the Government listened to those views, and we have come forward with two trigger mechanisms—one for when there should be an election, if there is a consensus, and another for when the Government have lost the confidence of the House of Commons. They are different issues that are dealt with separately. Interestingly, the Constitution Committee, whatever other concerns it may have had, thought that the Government’s proposals on the two trigger mechanisms were an appropriate way forward. In those circumstances, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate which, despite the late hour, has been quite useful and has teased out the reasons for the provision. Perhaps I may begin by briefly correcting my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness on his reference to the German example. He said that the Government there had engineered a vote of no confidence in themselves. In fact, they engineered defeat of a motion of confidence, which is not the same thing and is relevant to discussions that we will have later on how one defines a vote of confidence.

Reference was made earlier to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act and pre-legislative scrutiny. I served on the Joint Committee on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, as it then was. The title was later changed because I and others pointed out that nothing was being renewed by the Bill. My point is that the Joint Committee met for two hours twice a week for nearly three months. The more we discuss this Bill, the more convinced I am that it would have benefited from extensive pre-legislative scrutiny. The problem with much of the Bill is that it is not grounded in evidence. It is not exceptional in that respect but, as we have heard, this part of the Bill was the product of negotiations by politicians who are not necessarily noted for their knowledge of our constitutional arrangements.

Subsection (1) is highly unusual—certainly in comparative perspective. My noble and learned friend said that he would write to me with details of where this provision applies elsewhere. It may be helpful if I tell him that I can save him a letter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, thought that we were unique in this provision. That is not quite the case. Lithuania, Mongolia, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan have a similar provision. I wanted confirmation that the Government were unaware of that.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I apologise for misleading the House in that respect, and I accept the helpful correction of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord; I am glad he found that helpful, although my remarks were directed far more at the Government and to put the issue in comparative perspective. It is that sort of information from which the Government should have started when looking elsewhere to draw up the provisions. In terms of being unique, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, will not be surprised to know that if his three-quarters proposal were to be implemented, it would render us unique.

However, my point is that measures of this type need to be better grounded in thorough evidence before we proceed with them. This provision needs scrutiny that deserves far more consideration than we are able to give it this evening, and we may wish to reflect on that between now and Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

Amendments 28 and 29 not moved.

Amendment 30

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

30: Clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out “of” and insert “tabled by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons declaring that the House of Commons has”

22:45

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, the effect of the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friends Lord Rennard and Lord Tyler, and by me, is to refine Clause 2(2), which covers the provision for an early dissolution in the event of a vote of no confidence on a simple majority followed by a period of 14 days in which no Government is formed that enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons.

At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in what he described sotto voce a moment ago as one of his “many agonies”, made the point that under the clause it would be theoretically possible for a Prime Minister to engineer a vote of no confidence in his or her Government by his or her side so as to secure an early dissolution at a time of his or her choosing. That would deprive the Bill of its intended very beneficial effect of removing from the Prime Minister precisely that power.

The criticism cannot be made of Clause 2(1), which requires a two-thirds majority of all the seats in the House of Commons to trigger an early dissolution, so that in practice cross-party support would be required, given that no Parliament in recent history has enjoyed such a majority. However, in relation to Clause 2(2), the criticism made by the noble and learned Lord is technically accurate. At Second Reading, the response was made that any Prime Minister engineering a vote of no confidence in his or her Government in such a Machiavellian way would be punished at the ballot box. However, I and others suggested that the problem might need to be addressed at later stages of the Bill. The need to address the point made by the noble and learned Lord is given added weight by the fact that, in Germany, Governments have resorted to the device of engineering defeat on votes of confidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, correctly pointed out. It was done by Chancellor Brandt in 1972, by Chancellor Kohl in 1982 and by Chancellor Schroeder as recently as 2005.

The way in which Amendment 30 addresses the problem is simple. By requiring that a Motion of no confidence under Clause 2(2) must be tabled by the leader of the Opposition, the mischief is effectively addressed. The position of the leader of the Opposition is constitutionally recognised. He or she would inevitably be—and historically invariably has been—the person who would move a genuine Motion of no confidence. It follows that requiring that he or she be the mover of such a Motion if it is to have effect is a simple way to achieve the intention of the Bill. It would also provide a certain symmetry. Given that the purpose of the Bill is to remove from the Prime Minister the power to call an election at a time of his or her choosing, who better to be responsible for the trigger for an early election when all-party consensus is absent than a Member of the House who seeks to replace him or her as Prime Minister?

I note that Amendment 33, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is to the same effect. It gives me great confidence in our amendments that this is the first time since I joined your Lordships' House that I have had the pleasure of expressing agreement with the noble Lord in a debate on a constitutional matter.

I will make one final point. A further effect of Amendments 30 and 31 is that they contain a simple definition of a vote of no confidence. A Motion of no confidence would be a Motion declaring that the House of Commons had no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. That would mean that, once any vote went against the Government on an issue that would or might be seen as a confidence issue, the leader of the Opposition would have a chance to table a Motion of no confidence in those terms. If it were passed, the Speaker’s certificate would follow and the 14-day period provided for by Clause 2(2) would be triggered. If the Motion failed, that consequence would not follow. That arrangement would avoid doubt or argument, and it would avoid the need for any complication in the definition of what did and what did not constitute a vote of no confidence. I beg to move.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has just noted, it is remarkable that I have tabled an amendment which seeks to achieve exactly the same purpose as the amendments in this group tabled by the Liberal Democrat noble Lords. It is a nice example of how our parliamentary dialectic can be fruitful. The public notice all this adversarialism—they notice that we are always disagreeing with each other. However, if one takes a longer view, we find that all this debate and argument tends to produce a new consensus. Until recently, the Liberal Democrats wanted immediately to move on to discover new truths and interest us in new suggestions. They have been the grit in the oyster, endlessly introducing new ideas into our public debates. I hope that they will be able to continue to do so now that they have joined the governmental establishment. We shall see.

We have heard a certain amount about Germany from the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Marks. I think that it was in 1983, although the noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested it was 1982—the noble Lord, Lord Norton, will tell us who is right—that Chancellor Kohl deliberately contrived to defeat a Motion of confidence in his Government. As I understand it, the reason was that he wanted an election because he had come to power in the previous year by means of a parliamentary vote and not by means of popular endorsement at the election. He lacked a popular mandate and he wanted one. I do not think that he was punished at the ballot box, so I am not sure that the safeguard that the Government have suggested exists against the cynical use of the no-confidence provisions in the Bill to contrive an early election by an unscrupulous Prime Minister would necessarily work. On that occasion at least, Chancellor Kohl did not suffer at the election.

It is at least a possibility that Mr Cameron, too, not having won an election and feeling that he lacks popular endorsement, might, if he thought that he had an opportunity to do better in an early general election, be very tempted to go for that. It is hard to foresee that but who knows? If the 14-day provision that we are about to debate on another amendment were taken out, it would be even more important to guard against the Prime Minister being able to contrive a vote of no confidence. If immediately following a vote of no confidence he could go to the country, it would be that much more attractive to him.

I think we can see why the Liberal Democrats are keen for the Bill to be amended to provide that only the leader of the Opposition can table a Motion of no confidence. It is, sadly, because they do not trust their coalition partners and the Prime Minister. They worry that, as the Liberal Democrats become more unpopular—and we will perhaps see evidence of that after the local government elections and in the AV referendum—and as the cuts, which those who voted for them did not expect them to support, start to bite, Mr Cameron may ditch them and cut and run. Unless this amendment is in the Bill, the supermajority lock may not do the trick for them and keep the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues in office by postponing the evil day when he has to face the electors of Sheffield and the Liberal Democrats have to face the electors of the United Kingdom.

I note that an amendment of this kind would be less necessary if we were to have proportional representation as that would make it less likely that any party would win an overall majority in an early election and, therefore, it would be less tempting for the Prime Minister to contrive an early general election. However, we are where we are. The Liberal Democrats failed to secure a referendum on proportional representation and we have a referendum on the alternative vote only. I hear different views as to what the alternative vote might produce: some say that it is a majoritarian system of election that tends to reinforce the swing and others say that it is more likely that the alternative vote will produce an endless series of coalitions. Whatever the outcome proves to be in practice, with that electoral system it would be more important to have the safeguard which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others have proposed. I hope we do not have AV and some of us will do our best to ensure that we do not have it.

I see one significant argument against these amendments. We might have a situation, which the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, has adumbrated and which the Government have already played out, in which the Government lost a vote on a key Bill, they were incapable, for whatever conjunction of circumstances, of governing effectively, and their majority had fallen as in 1951 or 1996, but the Opposition reckoned that it was in their political interest to defer the election to allow the Government to continue to stew in their political juice for a little longer. In that situation they would not want to table a Motion of no confidence just yet. Of course, that would be bad for the country.

These are all hypothetical possibilities. It is very difficult for us to provide for every contingency that might arise, but I think it would be sensible to incorporate an amendment of the kind moved by the noble Lord and of the kind that my Amendment 33 provides.

23:00

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, will speak to Amendment 40, but perhaps I might anticipate that one as well. I suspect that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness will be advising the House against these amendments and I thought that at this hour of the night I might bring him some joy by saying that I shall agree with him in doing so.

I shall quickly adumbrate the problems that I foresee with the amendments. I understand what they seek to achieve, but I have concerns. I understand the motivation for limiting the Motion of no confidence to be moved by the leader of the Opposition. As we have heard, it is to limit the Government so that they do not engineer a vote of no confidence. However, it does exclude other Members of the House from the opportunity to move a vote of no confidence. The circumstances in which that is likely to happen may be exceptional but in historical terms they are not unknown. One of the most important debates that took place in wartime happened on a vote of no confidence which was not moved by the leader of the Opposition. It is unusual but I am not sure that should be excluded. I have certain concerns about the way in which that amendment is drawn. I can see the reasons for trying to prevent the Government doing that, but there are problems if it is solely confined to the leader of the Opposition.

My second problem with the amendment is the way in which it is drawn in relation to what constitutes a Motion of no confidence. It limits it to the House passing a Motion expressing no confidence in the Government. That narrows it in relation to what we presently understand to be a confidence Motion in the House of Commons and it narrows it unduly. Therefore, because of Amendment 50, to which we shall come on the next day in Committee, I would prefer to go down the route that seeks to preserve, as far as possible, our existing understanding of what constitutes a vote of confidence rather than narrowing it in the way that the amendment proposes.

I now anticipate Amendment 40, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will speak. I suspect that, had my noble friend Lord Cormack been here, he might have accused the noble and learned Lord of tabling it on a mischievous basis. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will say that it is serious. Perhaps we could compromise and say that it is serious but mischievous. The amendment states that,

“a vote of no confidence cannot be a valid mechanism to precipitate an early general election if the Speaker of the House of Commons has reason to believe that it is called with the support or collusion of the Government and issues a certificate to that effect”.

I have problems with the existing wording of the Bill in relation to the Speaker. As drafted, it could draw the Speaker into political controversy in issuing a certificate. If he can be drawn into controversy under the Bill as presently drawn, he would be drawn into it in spades under Amendment 40. We can just imagine what would happen if the Speaker said, “No, no, the House has passed a Motion of no confidence, but I think that the Government has probably colluded in it”. One can imagine the uproar that would be caused. The noble and learned Lord may be proposing his amendment to tease out that very fact; we shall hear shortly. On the face of it, as it is worded, his amendment exacerbates what I consider to be an existing problem in the Bill. Although I appreciate the reasons behind the amendments relating to the leader of the Opposition and votes of confidence, I cannot support them and will be quite happy to support my noble and learned friend in resisting them.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

First, on the amendment of the noble, Lord Marks, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. It fails to deal with two particular problems. First, when a Government lose a vote that is obviously a vote of confidence—if the Government had been defeated on the Motion authorising the use of force in Iraq, that would plainly have been a vote of confidence—it would be wholly wrong if there then had to be a vote of no confidence thereafter.

Equally, there have been votes which the Government lose, for example, the vote on Maastricht in 1992, which they then followed—in my view, entirely correctly —with a Motion tabled by the Prime Minister on a vote of confidence in the Government. If that vote had resulted in the Conservative Government being defeated on the vote of confidence, which was the traditional method of dealing with that, the consequence should have been not that there then needed to be a vote of no confidence from the Opposition—which, as I understand it, is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Marks—but that there should be a general election, or a 14-day delay, which we shall debate later.

Those two examples would not be covered by the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and therefore lead to dealing, on one view, with the collusion argument but strengthen the other risk in the Bill, which is that a Government who genuinely have lost the confidence of the Commons are able to stay in power. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, gets one piece of the wallpaper on the wall, another falls off.

On my amendment, I could not have asked for more from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. It is my view that in relation to a vote of no confidence, there is no possible mechanism one could adopt which would allow anyone to go behind the motivation of why a particular group of people voted in favour. That is an impossible task. It is like the vote of 100 in the Commons voting for an all-elected House of Lords. It has been suggested that that was a vote in order for there not to be an all-elected House of Lords. But one cannot go behind the vote; one must accept it at face value.

I tabled the amendment simply to illustrate the correctness of the conclusion of the committee on which the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, sits, chaired by my noble friend Lady Jay, that there is no ability to control a vote of confidence and that a Prime Minister with a majority can, if he or she wishes, engineer a situation where he or she loses a vote that is a vote of no confidence, even if not so called.

I have a third objection to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Is it such a bad thing that, had these provisions been in place, it would have been open to, for example, Mr Heath to go to the country not by engineering in some deceitful way but by simply saying that he thought that the Government needed to have the confidence of the people to go on with the particular stance they were taking? He would therefore have put down a Motion of confidence in his own Government with a view to there being an election. Is that a bad thing? What is the view of the Government on that? These are probing amendments in Committee. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, covers one situation, but it leaves a lot of others uncovered. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.

I tabled my amendment simply to establish the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. You cannot go behind people’s motivation, which means that the Select Committee is probably right. The Government of the day can always have an election whenever they want on a majority of one. Do the Government think that is necessarily a bad thing?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, this is the first of a series of groups of amendments dealing with the trigger mechanism from no-confidence Motions. I thank my noble friend who tabled this amendment and noble Lords who have tabled subsequent amendments. A general view has been expressed, particularly at Second Reading, that there is some merit in having certainty. A number of those who have contributed to this debate have made the point about the potential for abuse.

As I have indicated, the Government believe that the package of the two trigger mechanisms is sensible and straightforward. However, I accept that there has been considerable interest in the handling of the no-confidence Motions in particular. When the Bill passed through another place, there was some detailed debate on this, but it was not amended. The more one looks at it, the more one finds that perhaps the balance that has been struck in the Bill is right. However, the function of this Chamber is to be a revising Chamber to improve legislation and I want to make it clear to noble Lords that, in our deliberations on this amendment and the subsequent amendments, the Government are willing to listen carefully and to reflect on what noble Lords have to say with regard to trying to address the issue of certainty about what constitutes a no-confidence Motion and ways of trying to eliminate abuse.

It is to address certainty and to eliminate abuse that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marks provides that only a Motion of no confidence tabled by the leader of the Opposition would trigger the procedure in Clause 2(2)—namely, the 14-day period. The amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, seeks to achieve the same result. We have always been clear that this Bill is not a new constitution. It is intended to bring in an important provision—fixed-term Parliaments—having proper regard to existing constitutional arrangements and conventions. On the whole, the purpose of the Bill is to replace existing conventional democratic controls with legal controls in the context of a fixed-term Parliament. The only foolproof way in which to prevent an Executive from manipulating the rules to engineer a premature general election would be to remove those rules entirely—in other words, to provide for rigid fixed terms. The mood of the House at Second Reading—and I have not heard anything to contradict it since—was that there was very little support for having such rigidity. The Bill therefore provides procedures that allow for an early general election where one is clearly required. All the debates that we have had in this House and the other place confirm that this is regarded as a necessity. I think that we are in the territory of assessing whether the procedures in the Bill are satisfactory, rather than whether we should have these procedures at all. The purpose of these amendments is to see whether they can be improved on.

It is the case that the Bill does not say who may table a Motion of no confidence. That concurs with current practice. As was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Norton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, there is no restriction on who may table in the House of Commons a Motion of no confidence. As it happens, in practice, these have been tabled by opposition parties and almost always by the leader of the Official Opposition. The background note prepared by the Library in the other place sets out a history of confidence Motions. I am acutely aware that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has made an in-depth academic study of confidence and no-confidence Motions. Since 1895, not a single Motion has included the words “no confidence” other than in the name of the leader of the Opposition. As noble Lords are well aware, a decision by the leader of the Opposition to support or to table a no-confidence Motion automatically takes precedence over that tabled by any other party.

The question then is whether there is reason to deviate from current practice for the purposes of this legislation. I have listened carefully to what has been said about potential abuse, but I come back to the point that it would be obvious if the Government had set out to subvert the standard procedures of the other place. I take the view that it can in no way be excluded altogether but that there would almost certainly be retribution by the electorate. On the other hand, the electorate might decide that there was to be no retribution and that they fully supported the Government of the day—at the end of the day, the electorate are right.

The no-confidence procedures in the Bill as drafted would be activated only if the House of Commons had voted to the effect that it had no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. One has to reflect that, even if a Government tried to contrive it, if they went to the country with the Opposition saying that the House of Commons had no confidence in the Government, they might have a presentational problem on their hands. For the moment, I put it no higher than that. Those who think that the safeguard is meaningless are perhaps trying to nail down a political process with legal certainty. I have, I hope, been quite up front in these debates when I have said that if the Government were absolutely determined to try to abuse the rules, as I think the Constitution Committee itself accepted, although it would be possible to abuse them, there would be consequences to that. I rather suspect that, as the idea of a fixed-term Parliament and the rules set down by a fixed-term Parliament became more and more part of what people were accustomed to, there would be consequences over time if it was thought that a particular Government were trying to bend or get around the rules. The political consequences would be more damaging.

The amendments would have certain unintended consequences. The first of these is that the proposal is out of step with the process of rebalancing that is going on in the other place between the Front-Benchers of all parties and the Back-Benchers. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth made that point. In the past few years, there have been a series of reforms in the other place that have been designed to give Back-Bench MPs a greater voice. Part of this involved the report by the Reform of the House of Commons Committee, sometimes known as the Wright committee after its chairman Dr Tony Wright, the long-standing chairman of the Commons Public Administration Select Committee, and the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee. Amendment 30 would be counter to the general trend of these reforms by allowing the no-confidence procedures in the Bill to be triggered only by the leader of the Opposition.

The amendments would put in place a statutory provision that excluded the Back-Benchers and entrenched the dominance of those on the Front Benches. I am not sure that most Members of the other place would necessarily welcome the inclusion of such a provision when we returned the Bill to them. It is interesting that a similar amendment was tabled and debated in Committee in the other place, but I think that it is fair to say that it did not receive a warm welcome and was not even pushed to a vote. The amendments also leave open a number of unanswered questions, most notably what would happen if there had been a successful no-confidence vote in the Government but the leader of the Opposition failed to table a Motion of no confidence.

Finally, Clause 2 has been drafted in a way that is sensitive to the Commons having control of its internal procedures. Only the bare essentials of the new mechanisms have been put in place—there needs to be a two-thirds vote in favour to trigger a Dissolution vote, and the 14-day period commences on the passing of a no-confidence vote—but is it right to go further than this? Is it right to use legislation to tell the other place who is permitted to table a Motion or indeed to devise the precise words that should be used in a Motion for it to have legal effect?

As I said, I fully understand and indeed sympathise with the underlying motivation to these amendments, and I have indicated that we are willing to consider them, but there would be serious practical problems, and indeed constitutional problems, for the role of Back-Benchers. The alternative of letting the Commons develop its own practice and for the Speaker to inform the outside world whether this practice has been complied with through the Speaker’s certificate is preferable. We believe that the procedures that we have put in place to trigger early Dissolution are robust and transparent, and I ask your Lordships to reflect on the conclusions of the Constitution Committee on the trigger mechanisms for an early election. The Constitution Committee did have concerns about the definition of no-confidence Motions, which we have discussed and to which we will return, but it broadly endorsed that there should be two trigger mechanisms and that the sort of manipulation which noble Lords are concerned about would be seen as,

“an abuse of the Act’s provisions”.

23:15

The Government’s view is that the Bill steers an appropriate line between the concerns that have been expressed in this debate and those which I anticipate coming from my noble friend Lord Cormack on our next Committee day, when we will debate his amendment. It does not seek to outlaw or prescribe any form of no-confidence Motion, but provides sufficient clarity for it to be obvious when the Government were seeking to subvert the processes. No doubt, we will have ample opportunity to discuss this further.

Amendment 40 from the opposition Front Bench is aimed at similar concerns about manipulation. I think that it was proposed in the spirit of trying to tease out where we are on this. It would provide a further condition on the circumstances in which there is to be an early election. That further condition would be that the Speaker of the House of Commons would have to assess whether the vote of no confidence had been secured with the support or collusion of the Government. If it had, the Speaker would certify that fact and there could not be an early election.

Again, as I think was identified by my noble friend Lord Norton, the amendment would seem wholly undesirable because of the position in which it would place the Speaker. He would have an important role to play under the Bill as presently drafted. But to suggest, in addition to that, that he would have to look at the motivation of those who had pursued the Motion is of a completely different order. He would have to assess whether an election had been called with the support or collusion of the Government, which would seriously risk the Speaker becoming involved in matters of political controversy. He would be required to consider basically what was going on behind closed doors to discover how the Government were supporting the Motion of no confidence. How could he distinguish between genuine dissent from government Back-Benchers or a government-led plot? I believe, and I am sure that the House would agree, that this is a matter on which the Speaker should be neutral.

I know that the noble and learned Lord has concerns about the misuse of no-confidence Motions. As I indicated earlier, if we can find an acceptable way of trying to eliminate the potential for abuse, we are certainly open to these suggestions. I do not believe that this is one of the ways of doing it. But, ultimately, and particularly after rules on fixed-term Parliaments become part of our constitutional architecture, the idea of a Government trying to subvert the rules for their own benefit would be seen through by the electorate. As I have indicated, the Government are willing to consider proposals to amend the procedures on no-confidence Motions if we believe that they meet the criteria of providing certainty, but not doing so in a way which could lead to more unintended consequences.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

As regards the third question—let us assume that this Bill applied and that the Opposition did not support a general election—would the Government be willing for Heath, for example, to have a general election in those circumstances? Would they be against it? Is that an abuse?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Just to be clear about what I am being asked, as I understand it the noble and learned Lord has asked me whether, in February 1974, when Mr Heath wanted an election, if the Opposition had been against it he could have contrived a situation to do it. Clearly, under these circumstances, it would have been possible to contrive. He might not have had the election on the date on which he wanted it if it had had to be 14 days after he had lost a confidence Motion. He may well have found in weighing that up whether it was the right course of action. It may have saved him from what happened in the end.

I believe that it would be possible but, again, it would be a matter of judgment. Indeed, the electorate did make a judgment at the time on a Prime Minister who chose to go before his term of office was anywhere near complete. If he had also contrived the means of doing that, the consequences for him might well have been greater. That is pure speculation. We will never know. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I am grateful for the indications given by the Minister that there will be some flexibility in consideration of how to deal with no confidence Motions. The Minister should know that I and my noble friends who proposed these amendments fully support the two triggers and the basis on which no confidence Motions are dealt with in the Bill, subject to the proposition mentioned at Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Indeed, it gave me great pleasure to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, in relation to this amendment, but it gave me less pleasure to hear him suggest that the only reason the Liberal Democrats are moving the amendment is because they do not trust their Conservative colleagues not to rat on the coalition and go to the country. I invite noble Lords to accept that the reason for the amendment is simply to address the problem that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, identified in the Second Reading debate, which was that the Prime Minister could technically engineer a dissolution and that that was the mischief at which this Bill is aimed.

I turn to the history of no confidence Motions. I had understood from the Library note, as had my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that since 1895 all Motions of confidence or no confidence have been moved by the leader of the Opposition, or at least if not initially, then taken over by him after others had moved such Motions. The reason why that is an attractive proposition is that it is simple and it vests in the alternative Prime Minister the power to move the Motion of no confidence. In tabling the amendments as we did, my noble friends and I considered carefully the question of balance between Front-Benchers and Back-Benchers in the other place, to which the Minister referred. However, if one does not specify that it should be for the leader of the Opposition to move a Motion of no confidence, inevitably the field is opened in such a way as to make it possible for the Prime Minister to collude with another Back-Bench Member of Parliament, not of his own party, in the moving of a Motion of no confidence. That is undesirable because it increases the danger to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, originally referred.

On the question of the definition of a vote of no confidence, I accept, as I suspect do most Members of the Committee, that traditionally in the House of Commons, Motions on issues considered to be issues of confidence may take many forms. But, at the margins, such Motions do not necessarily amount to Motions of no confidence and I do not accept that the desirable way to deal with those Motions on the margins is by requiring the Speaker to certify that they are Motions of no confidence. If this Bill is enacted, we are moving into a new era in this field, that of fixed-term Parliaments with a statutory code for early Dissolution. It is, I would suggest, appropriate that there should be a new procedure, a new clarity, in the statutory code on the question of votes of no confidence. In moving the amendment, it seems to us that the sensible way to proceed is for a Motion on a confidence issue that may be at the margins or may be dubious to be followed by a clear, declaratory Motion of no confidence about which there could be no doubt. It is for that reason that the simplicity and, I suggest, the elegance of the solution whereby the leader of the Opposition has that responsibility, should be accepted.

The idea that a certificate of non-collusion should be the way forward, as suggested in the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, carries with it endless difficulties that make the solution unattractive. I see that the noble and learned Lord is nodding in agreement. It would involve the Speaker in value judgments, which would be thoroughly undesirable, would be difficult to make and would require him to conduct a single-handed assessment of the evidence before him of collusion or non-collusion. I note that the noble and learned Lord appears to agree with that.

I urge the House in passing this Bill to have regard to the central mischief at which it is aimed. In so doing, I invite a robust answer to the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about the conundrum facing Mr Heath in 1974. He wanted Dissolution on the basis of testing who governed the country, the Government or the trade unions. Had he been able to get a majority, as I suspect he would have done, of two-thirds—in other words, the agreement of the Opposition to go to the country on that issue—that would have been all well and good. Had he been unable to get the agreement of the Opposition, I suggest that it would not have been appropriate to allow him the option of engineering a vote of no confidence in his own Government in those circumstances, because what should have happened was that either the House agreed, the Opposition agreed or the Opposition moved the Motion.

In so saying, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Amendment 31 not moved.

Amendment 32

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

32: Clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) the Speaker of the House of Commons had in advance of the motion in question being debated certified that the motion was to be regarded as a motion of no confidence, and”

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, this amendment deals with the requirement for the Speaker to issue a certificate. This is one of the most important and difficult issues in the Bill. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Marks, speak thoughtfully about this problem in his concluding remarks just now. It seems to me, if I may venture to suggest this to the Committee, quite unsuitable that we should embark upon this very major debate at this hour of the evening, but if that is its wish, I shall very briefly sketch the issue that I think we should return to—which we will be able to do, for example, on Amendment 51, which I have tabled as an amendment to Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

Amendment 32 would require the Speaker to have certified in advance that a Motion was to be regarded as a Motion of no confidence if it were to lead to an early general election. The legislation requires the Speaker to issue a certificate establishing that a Motion of no confidence has been passed on a Division as a precondition of Dissolution and an early general election. The idea of a Speaker’s certificate was lifted from the Parliament Act 1911, which requires the Speaker to certify that a Bill is a money Bill before it goes to the House of Lords. That certification is of a relatively ascertainable fact. The characteristics of a money Bill are clearly described in the preceding subsection of the Parliament Act.

The introduction of the concept of a Speaker’s certificate is entirely novel, I think, in the context of Motions of no confidence, and I believe that it needs extremely careful consideration for three reasons. First, there is the difficulty of defining a Motion of no confidence, a Motion of confidence or vote of confidence—what exactly is the Bill talking about? Secondly, through this procedure, the Speaker would be liable to be placed in extremely contentious political circumstances and to have to play an extremely contentious part in them. Thirdly, the statutory requirement for the Speaker to issue such a certificate may lay him open to legal challenge in the courts, either those of this country or the European Court of Justice. That is a major hazard apprehended by the Clerk of the House of Commons. For all these three reasons, I believe that we need to proceed with the utmost caution and that what is drafted in the Bill carries with it very considerable risks.

23:30

I would prefer frankly to lay out my arguments more fully when we come to Amendment 51, when I think the Committee expects to address these major concerns about the nature of a Motion of no confidence and the Speaker’s role. For now, I shall say only that among the reasons why I have tabled this amendment is that the Minister, Mr Harper, in giving evidence to the Select Committee on the Constitution, said that it was the Government’s view that,

“the Speaker would make it very clear before such a vote took place whether it was a vote on which he would issue his certificate”.

We need to examine that thought very carefully.

There would be immense difficulties for the Speaker in certifying in advance that a Motion was to be a vote of no confidence. It is plain sailing where it is a classic vote of no confidence, in which the expression “no confidence” is explicitly articulated and there is no ambiguity—the House is entirely accustomed to this convention. However, it gets more difficult where the Speaker has to certify that a Government defeat on a major measure was, in effect, a defeat on a Motion of confidence. With defeats on the Queen’s Speech, on Budget resolutions or on the Second or Third Readings of a Finance Bill, again the House knows where it stands on votes of those kinds and the difficulties would not be too great for the Speaker. However, there are other categories of potential Government defeats, which may be regarded as votes of confidence, where it is dangerous, unreasonable and altogether excessive to require the Speaker to certify that the vote which has just taken place is a vote whereby the Government forfeit the confidence of the House of Commons and the Government must therefore fall and there must be a general election.

I shall say no more about these very important major issues now because it is late in the evening and we will have other opportunities. They deserve to be considered by a better attended House than we have at the moment, which is no reflection on the quality of scrutiny of those noble Lords who are conscientiously present at this late hour. I beg to move.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I completely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has said about the importance of this issue. It is no one’s fault, but starting this debate at 11.28 pm is a little odd. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, we shall obviously have to return to this when we debate both the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—Amendment 50—and the amendment to Amendment 50 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, to leave out subsections (3) and (4). Unless other noble Lords have remarks to make, the best thing may be to move straight to the Minister and hear his response. The important point that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, made about Mr Mark Harper’s comments that he could envisage the Speaker certifying in advance will obviously have to be debated when we come to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I plan to be extremely brief, as I have classes to teach in Hull shortly after 9 o’clock in the morning.

I wish to raise one point arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has said. I have considerable sympathy with the argument that he is developing that either the Speaker’s certificate goes out of the Bill completely or, if it stays in, it needs to be refined. He was teasing out the point made by the Minister that the Government would expect the Speaker to indicate in advance whether he would certify a Motion as one of confidence. So, on the basis of that expectation, I wish to raise this question. One could raise it on any serious Bill but I have used before the example of the European Communities Bill in 1972, where the Prime Minister, Edward Heath, said, “If we lose this, the Government cannot sensibly continue”. If, in a situation like that, the Speaker took a contrary view and declined to certify the Bill as one of confidence but the Prime Minister said, “This is essential to our programme and, if we are defeated, we shall resign”, what would happen?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, about the lateness of the hour. I always understood that this evening’s proceedings were going to go late. We tried to accommodate that by finishing somewhat earlier last time. Nevertheless, it is an important point, as he indicated, that there will be the opportunity at a later stage with a subsequent amendment to perhaps explore this further, including the point raised by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth.

The effect of the amendment would be to require the Speaker to issue two certificates before an early election is triggered on account of a no-confidence vote. The clause already provides for the Speaker certifying that there has been a no-confidence Motion, and a Motion of no confidence in the Government during the ensuing 14-day period. The amendment, as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, would require an additional, earlier certificate issued in advance of a debate as to whether the Motion is to be regarded as a Motion of no confidence.

This again arises out of the concern that the House of Commons may not always know whether it is voting on a Motion of no confidence. It is highly unlikely that the House of Commons, in its ordinary business, would pass a resolution which was perhaps contrary to a matter of policy and the wishes of the Government of the day, but a matter on which no one had ever actually thought that there was any great store set, and then at the end of the 14-day period the Speaker unexpectedly issues a certificate. I have heard that concern expressed but it is not a realistic scenario.

The point was made that my honourable friend Mr Mark Harper indicated that in all likelihood a future no-confidence Motion would not only take the form that it did when a Motion was last passed but also, in the event of it happening, the Speaker of the House of Commons would be able to inform Members before they vote. For example, if it was on an amendment to the Queen’s Speech, the Speaker would inform Members of the House of Commons before the vote that, in the event of the Motion being passed, the Speaker would regard it as a no-confidence Motion for the purposes of Clause 2.

That is a simple and straightforward process. The Speaker advises the House of Commons on other procedural matters before it. I understand the point that has been made and, clearly as I indicated in my introductory remarks to the previous set of amendments, we will reflect on all these points. Yet we find it difficult to accept that there should be an additional layer of complexity to the process. One wonders how much time there would be to allow such a certificate to be issued if it was a pressing debate. It would be regrettable if such a debate was somewhat held up while the Speaker was engaged in the process of considering whether a certificate should be issued and that is then done.

We share the goal behind the noble Lord’s amendment—that the Commons should be well informed before it votes on confidence matters. The idea of an ambush is unfounded but I hear what the noble Lord says with regard to trying to import that greater degree of certainty. It is an issue to which we will return, one we will certainly reflect on and one we will perhaps have a wider debate on—perhaps with more participants—in the subsequent Amendment 51. On that basis, for the moment I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Perhaps when we come to the later debate, we will address the questions that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has also raised.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I thank both the Minister and the Committee and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 32 withdrawn.

Amendment 33 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 11.39 pm.