Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2012

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the draft orders be referred to a Grand Committee

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, will the Leader of the House make a Statement to the House on Monday, first, on when the Welfare Reform Bill will return to this House following Commons consideration of Lords amendments yesterday and, secondly, on the procedural impact on the Bill of the declaration of Commons financial privilege in relation to a number of the Bill’s clauses?

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I accept the invitation that the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition has made. First, the decision on when we will take Lords consideration of Commons amendments on the Welfare Reform Bill will be made in the usual channels in due course and will then appear on the Order Paper, which I hope will be for the benefit of the House. We will have the discussions in the usual channels as soon as possible.

Secondly, the clerks of the House stand ready to give any noble Lord procedural advice, but perhaps I may repeat something that I said yesterday afternoon: namely, that privilege is nothing new, having existed for nearly 350 years, and that any amendment with implications for public expenditure might involve privilege, but that it is a matter for another place, not for me or us. As the previous Clerk of the Parliaments stated in a recently published memorandum,

“until the Commons asserts its privilege, the Lords is fully entitled to debate and agree to amendments with privilege implications”.

There is nothing new in any of this. The Commons asserts its privilege in almost every Session. It has done so already this Session and did so regularly in the previous Parliament. Indeed, the previous Department of Work and Pensions Bill that attracted financial privilege was in the Session 2006-07 when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, himself was the Minister.

It is also worth reminding noble Lords that the Joint Committee on Conventions, which sat under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham and reported in 2006, said:

“If the Commons have disagreed to Lords Amendments on grounds of financial privilege, it is contrary to convention for the Lords to send back Amendments in lieu which clearly invite the same response”.

The House took note, with approval, of that report on 16 January 2007. If the Commons has asserted privilege, it is simply not profitable for this House to persist.

I hope that that is a helpful explanation of where we are, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity of making this short statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, may I just add to that point made by the noble Lord? I respectfully suggest to my noble friend the Leader of the House that he has a duty to the House as a whole, as well as to the Government’s interests. There have been a series of events that give the impression that the other place, which increasingly sends legislation up here that is not properly considered and debated, is treating this place with some contempt, not least of which is the suggestion that the Parliament Act might be used in respect of the reform of this place. I suggest to my noble friend that the time may have come for him to assert his authority as Leader of the House and have a frank chat with some of his colleagues.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I note all that has been said and the wisdom that has come from many Members of this House. I have two questions for the noble Lord. First, could he confirm that if the Government so wished they could waive financial privilege? Secondly, in the light of all that has been said in this very short debate and the importance of the work being undertaken by the Joint Committee in relation to conventions, I think that the House as a whole would welcome a Statement from the noble Lord on Monday to further discuss these issues.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that was a useful tour around the House on this matter of privilege. From time to time there are debases on privilege in this House, and it is entirely right that we should have them. But as I have explained, the matter of privilege is nothing to do with the Government, although the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is entirely right that in certain instances the Government can waive financial privilege—if, for instance, they were to agree with an amendment made in the House of Lords or to part of an amendment. As I understand it, neither of those occurred on this occasion.

As the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, explained yesterday and again today, financial privilege is a matter for the House of Commons alone and, within the House of Commons, it is a matter for the Speaker on advice from the Clerks, not from the Government. I do not think that it would be useful for this House to debate endlessly or take a view of procedures in another place, any more than we would like another place to have a view about the procedures in this House. Both Houses have a longstanding convention that we do not debate the other’s practice, and I think that that is entirely right.

What I sense underlies much of this angst is what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, talked about, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth—about the possibility of a reform. I am the first to defend the rights and privileges of this House, as I have done continually since I have been Leader. It is perfectly true that in the scenario of an elected House over time, the procedures and powers in this House would evolve; it could well mean that we ended up with a stronger and more powerful House, better able to challenge decisions made in the House of Commons. But that is part of the evolution between the two Houses. It would be a reversal of the evolution that has taken place over the course of the past 100 years, or so, but there is no reason why that should happen. If the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and others were to amend or wish to amend a Bill on the reform of the House to do that, of course that is entirely possible. I am not sure what the Labour Party’s position is on the powers of the second Chamber. Perhaps this is the kind of positive thinking—or critical thinking, or continual thinking—that the Labour Party needs to do, apparently, and it will let its views be known.

My noble friend Lord Lawson was such a distinguished Chancellor of Exchequer for many years. I do not have the statistics, but I cannot believe that when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he cheered every time the House of Lords spent more money.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am well aware that my noble friend managed perfectly well.

My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asked whether I was going to make a Statement on whether or why this was not a money Bill. I must say that I have not the faintest idea why this was not a money Bill. I am sure there are very good, practical and well precedented reasons why social security legislation is not deemed to be a money Bill.

A number of noble Lords have suggested that I should make a Statement at some stage next week on privilege. Let me consider that. There is no point making a Statement if we do not add very much more to the amount of knowledge that we already have. We will have an opportunity to debate the Bill when it returns from the House of Commons and when we have decided on a date, but if I can shed any extra light then I will do so. It might be better to have a Question for Short Debate, where we can discuss these matters in the round.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I have to crave the indulgence of the House once more to quote something back at the noble Lord the Leader from when I was a transgressor on financial privilege. This is a very enlightening piece from Hansard. The noble Lord the Leader said:

“The Government therefore did not seek to debate the substance of my noble friend’s amendment in another place last night; they simply declared it unconstitutional and cited privilege. I do not think that that is good enough. The Government should not hide behind the principle of privilege as a matter of course, because what is constitutional should be a matter for the whole of Parliament. Parliament should not accept the use of the privilege amendment in cases of doubt simply to stifle debate, which is the impression that the Government have given in dealing with my noble friend’s amendments. After all, if the amendments of your Lordships’ House are not to be discussed, what is the point of this House ever agreeing to any amendments? I ask the noble Baroness”—

that is, me—

“to consider this matter carefully with her colleagues in another place, with Members of this House and, perhaps, with the Clerk of the Parliaments and his opposite number in another place to see how this issue can be resolved. If the rights of your Lordships are well understood—not only in their limits but in their reality and usefulness—then none of us should see those rights lightly eroded”.—[Official Report, 25/11/08; cols. 1359-60.]

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is always nice to have my speeches quoted and of course we could do this all day. The noble Baroness could quote my rather good speeches and I could quote her equally good ones. In fact, I will requote what I also said to the noble Baroness in that same speech: that she had,

“rightly pointed out that there is a long established position that this House does not insist on an amendment where the other place cites financial privilege, and no one, least of all me, is trying to change that”.—[Official Report, 25/11/08; col. 1359.]

I rest my case.

EU Council

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place.

First, I associate these Benches with the remarks made about Iran, Syria and Burma. On these issues there has been a bipartisan approach and the Government have our full support in the efforts that they are making. However, in relation to the European Union, I am bound to say that I am perplexed. Last month when the Prime Minister came back from Brussels he said, to the dismay of these Benches, that his veto included a veto on the use of EU institutions. That position was reiterated by the Chancellor the day after the summit when he said,

“If we had signed this treaty … we would have found the full force of … the European Court, the European Commission, all these institutions enforcing those treaties, using that opportunity to undermine Britain’s interests … We were not prepared to let that happen”.

Indeed, the Welfare Secretary made the same points this weekend. Yet it is clear from today’s Statement that the European institutions will fulfil their usual role in relation what I would call a new treaty, and the buildings of the European institutions will be used. How can the Prime Minister possibly argue one month that something is a great threat to the national interest and the next that it is a matter of relatively minor significance on which Britain can reserve its position? I well understand that some people may be confused or even dismayed by this turnaround. However, on these Benches we are glad.

I am also perplexed that today the Prime Minister talks of a treaty, yet yesterday he said at the press conference:

“There isn’t a Brussels EU treaty; it doesn’t exist, I vetoed it”.

Yet to my mind it seems to have all the attributes of a treaty. I understand that the Foreign Office made extensive diplomatic efforts to persuade other euro-outs not to sign. Fleetingly it seemed that the Poles might lead a significant number in not joining up, but at the end of the day the only country to put itself in the same isolated and powerless position as ourselves is the Czech Republic. Is the Leader of the House satisfied with this abject failure of diplomacy?

It would also seem that no protections have been secured for Britain. The Government say that protections have been secured about discussions on the single market, but what are those protections? What has happened to the list that the Prime Minister circulated at 2 am at the previous European Council? Was this a serious effort to protect UK national interests or a flimsy excuse for not signing the treaty because ratification would have caused aggro and difficulties in the other place?

The treaty says that,

“the Contracting Parties … take the necessary actions and measures in all the domains which are essential to the good functioning of the euro area”.

Then it goes on to list them: fostering competitiveness; promoting employment; and reinforcing financial stability. They sound like single market issues to me. Can the Leader confirm whether the UK will have observer status at the regular meetings of the 25 so that we know what is going on and whether or not the single market is being discussed? If we do not have observer status, who is going to protect the British national interest at these meetings? Who is going to ensure that deals are not made to undermine the single market? I suspect that it will be officials from the European Commission—the much maligned Brussels bureaucrats. I wonder whether the Leader might not think it ironic that the European Commission—for which I once proudly worked but from which I do not receive a pension—will be this Government’s greatest ally in defending and improving the single market?

There are now growing fears that the scale of austerity required under the compact will not work. The rating agency Standard & Poor’s said that,

“a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating”.

In particular, Article 4 demands that countries reduce their debt levels at such a rate that it will make it very hard for them to grow their economies. Does the noble Lord believe that the economic strategy in the fiscal compact will work? Perhaps he thinks it will because it is a mirror image of the Government’s own policies, but I suggest that those policies are not working.

Yesterday’s summit was supposed to tackle youth unemployment. I wonder what solutions the Government suggested in the light of experience in this country where long-term youth unemployment has doubled over the past year. Will the Government be applying to the European Social Fund for the extra money for apprenticeships, support schemes for young business starters and entrepreneurs that is now to be made available? Will they be applying for the new European Investment Bank support for SMEs and infrastructure? Or, by not signing the treaty, have the Government cut Britain off from the extra help that unemployed young people and SMEs need?

On these Benches, we believe that the summit was bad for Britain, for our businesses, for jobs and for families. There is still no solution to the problems of growth in Europe. The Prime Minister’s veto that never was has been exposed and Britain now has less influence in the European Union than we have had for a generation. Britain deserves better.

House of Lords: Reform

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

How to scrutinise the scrutineers, my Lords. I have not yet given great thought to how this House will do that, but there will be discussions in the usual channels. It is likely that in the new Session of Parliament we will find an opportunity at least to debate the Joint Committee’s report, and we will make an announcement in due course.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader mentioned variables in relation to cost and I quite understand the variables. As the Joint Committee itself is looking at variables, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Joint Committee is looking at the variable costs?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am not responsible for the Joint Committee and nor are the Government. There are 26 members of the Joint Committee, including Members of the Cross Benches and a Bishop, so I am sure that if they wish to study the variables, in whichever shape or form they wish to, they will be able to do so and they will be able to attach figures to them.

European Council

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on the EU Council made today in another place by the Prime Minister. In this House, Leaders of the Opposition tend to open their statements on normal, regular EU Council meetings in roughly that vein. This was a normal, scheduled EU Council meeting, even if it was taking place at a particularly difficult time. But this was no normal, regular outcome to a normal EU Council meeting. What happened in Brussels in the early hours of Friday morning was momentous. The implications of the Prime Minister’s decision may well take years, decades even, to unfold fully. It is clear that Britain is now travelling in a different direction from the rest of Europe.

The reality of where we are is this: the Prime Minister has given up our seat at the table; he has exposed, not protected, British business; he has got a bad deal for Britain. The Prime Minister told us that his first priority at the summit was sorting out the eurozone but the euro crisis is not resolved. There is no promise by the European Central Bank to be the lender of last resort. There is no plan for growth. There is little progress on bank recapitalisation, so can the Leader of the House tell us why the Prime Minister’s promise of a so-called big bazooka did not materialise and what that means for Britain? At the summit that was meant to solve these problems, the Prime Minister walked away from the table.

Let me turn to where that decision leaves this country. Many people feared an outcome of 17 going it alone. Few could have dreamt of the diplomatic disaster of 26 going ahead and one country—Britain—being left behind. The Prime Minister talks of isolation in the national interest but the truth is that this is isolation against the national interest. The Prime Minister rests his whole case on the fact that 26 countries will be unable to use existing treaties or institutions. Can the Leader of the House confirm that Article 273 of the European treaty allows them to use the European Court of Justice, and no doubt they will use the Commission’s service and, yes, even the buildings? In case anyone had any doubt, it is confirmed by what the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that it clearly would be ludicrous for the 26, which is pretty well the whole of the European Union, to completely reinvent a whole panoply of institutions.

The Prime Minister claimed in his Statement to have done what he did because this treaty posed a grave threat to our financial services industry. Can the Leader of the House point to a single proposal in the treaty that would have entailed the alleged destruction of the City of London? What was the threat? Can the Leader of the House now tell us? In any case, there is nothing worse for protecting our interests in financial services than the outcome that the Prime Minister ended up with. Can the Leader of the House confirm that there is not one extra protection that the Prime Minister has secured for financial services?

The Prime Minister has laid great stress since Friday on his claim that British interests would be better protected as a result of his decision in Brussels. Can the Leader of the House tell your Lordships the basis for such a claim? Can he say precisely what safeguards the Prime Minister asked for? Can he say what mandate the Prime Minister had, and from whom, for making those demands? Was it the full Cabinet or the Deputy Prime Minister? The Prime Minister wanted a veto on financial services regulation but he did not get one. The Prime Minister wanted guarantees on the location of the European banking authority but he did not get them. Far from protecting our interests, the Prime Minister has left us without a voice and the sensible members of the Prime Minister’s own party, including some Members of your Lordships’ House understand this as well as anyone. We on these Benches agree with the remarks made at the weekend by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, when he said:

“You can’t protect the interests of the City by floating off into the middle of the Atlantic”.

What about the rest of British business—the part of British business that the Prime Minister does not seem to have been thinking about? There is a danger for it, too, in that the discussions about the single market on which it relies will take place without us—a point that Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of WPP, the advertising company, is only the first from the business world to be making today.

The Deputy Prime Minister clearly does not agree with the Prime Minister. He says that this outcome leaves Britain “isolated and marginalised”. Does the Leader of the House agree with that assessment? Can the Leader of the House explain how the Prime Minister can expect to persuade anyone else that this is a good outcome for Britain when he cannot even persuade the Deputy Prime Minister? The Prime Minister believes that this decision was best for Britain, but the Deputy Prime Minister does not. Which is the Government’s position on this issue—the Prime Minister’s or the Deputy Prime Minister’s? With the Deputy Prime Minister saying that he is “bitterly disappointed” with the outcome obtained by the Prime Minister, can the Leader tell the House how the coalition can work properly with, at its heart, such a fundamental disagreement on such a fundamental issue?

The Prime Minister claimed to have wielded a veto, but a veto is supposed to stop something happening—it is not a veto when the thing you wanted to stop goes ahead without you. How did we end up with this outcome? Can the Leader of the House confirm that what the Prime Minister actually proposed was to unpick the existing rules of the Single European Act signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher? Given that it was changing 25 years of the single market, why did the Prime Minister propose it in the final hours before the summit, and where were the Prime Minister’s allies? If the Prime Minister wanted a deal, why did he fail to build alliances with the Swedes, the Dutch, the Poles—our traditional supporters? If the Prime Minister really wanted to protect the single market and financial services, can the Leader of the House say why no guarantees were sought that these issues would only be discussed with all 27 members in the room?

Can the Leader tell us why the Prime Minister walked away from a treaty negotiation even before there was a text on the table on which we could have negotiated? The treaty will take months and months to negotiate. The Prime Minister could have reserved his position and continued to talk, as other countries have done. We believe the real answer is that the Prime Minister did not want a deal because he knew that he could not deliver it through his Back-Benchers.

I usually start my day by having a loud, one-sided argument with the “Today” programme, either with the presenters or coalition Ministers espousing policies with which I disagree because of the detrimental effect they will have on the people of our country. However, on Friday morning I was stunned into silence when I heard that the Prime Minister had wielded the veto at the European summit. This was such an extraordinary failure of diplomacy. I simply could not understand why a veto had been used over a treaty that as yet has no text and which we are not even being asked to sign yet, and how our national interests could be best served by absenting ourselves from future discussions and negotiations. The implications of our isolation are huge and we are in danger of being sidelined on a vast number of issues, including the single market.

We now have no influence at all on the final form and content of the new intergovernmental treaty. Why is this important? It is about the future stability of our continent, the future stability of the euro and therefore the future stability of the UK economy. Of course, people are right to be concerned about the European Union and the situation in the eurozone because these have great implications for our country. However, by absenting ourselves from the negotiations, by leaving an empty chair, we are abnegating our responsibilities. We should have a voice in the discussions but we are choosing not to use it. This is clearly not in our national interest.

Nothing has changed in terms of banking, financial services and hedge funds. The decisions will continue to be taken by qualified majority because financial services regulation is part of the internal market rules. However, I suggest that the 26 will be less likely to listen to our concerns in future. In addition, the 26 will naturally develop the habit of working together on a broad range of economic policy, and our voice—the voice of the most economically liberal and free market member state—will not be heard until most of the discussions have taken place.

I have always believed, and continue to believe, that as a nation we are strengthened by membership of the European Union, not just in terms of trade but of our place in the world. Suddenly, with one fell swoop of a veto that was never even used by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, we were sidelined, and our role in the world was diminished. It could mean that in future the Americans think doing business with Europe means doing business with Berlin, Paris and Brussels rather than London. This is a bad deal, which we have ended up with for bad reasons, and it will have long-lasting consequences. It is a decision that means that we are on the sidelines, not just for one summit but for the years ahead.

The Prime Minister told the other place on 24 October:

“At the heart of our national interest … is not only access to that single market but the need to ensure that we are sitting around the table … determining the rules that our exporters have to follow. That is key to our national interest, and we must not lose that”. [Official Report, Commons, 24/10/11; col. 38.]

However, that is exactly what the Prime Minister has done. He has done what no Prime Minister has ever thought to be wise before: to leave the room to others, to abandon our seat at the table. The Prime Minister says that he had no choice, but he did. The Prime Minister could have stayed inside and fought his corner. He should have stayed inside and fought his corner.

This country will rue the day that the Prime Minister left Britain alone without allies and without influence. The outcome obtained by the Prime Minister is bad for business, bad for jobs, and bad for Britain.

[Lord Strathclyde]

It is always good to hear the noble Baroness, the Leader of the Opposition, on such fine form. I strained to hear, in all her words, whether or not the Labour Party would have signed up to the agreement on Thursday night, and I have no idea if anybody else heard the answer—I certainly did not. I invite the noble Baroness to nod, or shake her head, and she is doing absolutely neither.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, we are not the Government. The noble Lord is in the Cabinet and represents the Government.

[Lord Strathclyde]

It is very hard for the noble Baroness to criticise when she is not able to tell us what her party would have done in our position. When the Labour Party was in a position to stand up for British interests, it gave away the opt-out on the social chapter, signed up to the Lisbon treaty and refused to ask the British people for approval, and gave away something like £7 billion of the rebate and got absolutely nothing in return.

The Prime Minister was clear all along that he would protect our national interests. That is exactly what he did. It is in our national interest for the countries with the euro to fix their problems. We said that we could only agree a new treaty if certain modest, reasonable and relevant safeguards were obtained—safeguards for the EU as a whole, not just for the UK—but we could not get those safeguards. That is why the Prime Minister did not sign the treaty.

The noble Baroness asked specifically about the EU institutions. At this stage it is very difficult to know exactly what role is proposed for the EU institutions, and therefore to take a view as to what will happen in the outcome over the course of the next few weeks.

The noble Baroness asked, though she did not put it quite in these words, what we fear from the existing treaty. What concerned us was the huge damage that could potentially have occurred to the single market and financial services. We stopped Britain from signing up to something that was damaging.

The noble Baroness asked what has changed since Thursday. The answer is, very little between Wednesday and Friday. We are still firmly part of the EU, as I, or rather the Prime Minister in his Statement, explained.

The noble Baroness asked what safeguards we were asking for. We were not asking for very much. We were asking for legal clarity, that decisions on running and extending the single market would not be taken away from the EU as a whole and be made instead by the eurozone-led group. On financial services we asked for practical and focused proposals to protect the openness and competitiveness of the single market for all, especially for those outside the euro. We also asked for a proper role for our national regulators, scrutinising institutions from outside the EU which are present in Britain but nowhere else, and for freedom for our regulators to impose additional requirements on our banks, if we in this House, and in another place, so chose.

These are the most humble safeguards that we could possibly have asked for. The noble Baroness should not be asking why, in her words, we were isolated, but why the 26 countries did not agree with us, or agree to give us these safeguards. The noble Baroness says that we are isolated and marginalised. But no, we are one of the biggest economies in Europe and one of the biggest contributors to the EU. We are one of the most successful countries, and we will continue to be so. That, my Lords, is why we did not sign the treaty.

Business of the House

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, given the pressure of business in this House and the lack of business in the other place, all noble Lords are anxious to know when this longest-ever Session of Parliament will end. I would therefore be grateful if the noble Lord the Leader of the House could confirm the information given by his right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons on Thursday 10 November, at col. 454 of Hansard, that the Queen’s Speech will be held in May.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition quite correctly gave notice of her question to my office just before Question Time, and I am very grateful to her.

I have not had time to consult my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal, Sir George Young, and neither he nor I wish to mislead either House in any way. However, I have now had his words drawn to my attention, and I have read them, so perhaps I can give some context and perspective to the words he used. He was answering a question from his opposite number about the desirability of autumn versus spring State Openings. He was referring to a Statement that he had made on 13 September, when he said that State Openings,

“will, in future, ordinarily take place in the spring, rather than in the autumn”.—[Official Report, Commons 13/9/10; col. 34WS.]

That is very much what he intended to say. The context of this is the new Fixed-term Parliaments Act under which Sessions will run after general elections in May, and from May to May. That was what he was trying to say.

My right honourable friend may also be taking a very pessimistic view of the progress of business in this House. I think that the usual channels have a plan to deliver this Session in a timely manner, and I hope that we can do better than that.

Procedure of the House (Proposal 5)

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, before the Leader sits down, perhaps I may ask him about the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, which is that most Statements are currently made available in our Printed Paper Office when the Minister sits down in the House of Commons. It would be extremely helpful if they were made available when the Minister stood up in the House of Commons.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I think so, too. I shall see whether we can make this happen. There may be some extremely good, logical reason why the Statement is not made available earlier, but if it can be changed then I think that it should.

Business of the House

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

That leave be given to advance the Third Reading of the Education Bill, which had been set down for 14 November, to 9 November.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that it is the practice in this House that noble Lords answer on behalf of the Government as a whole, not just on behalf of their own departments?

Companion to the Standing Orders

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My noble friend has very cleverly introduced yet another subject. Of course, it would be entirely up to them whether they went to the Conservative Party conference.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the whole House will understand that some of the difficulties that have arisen in usual channels and throughout the House as a whole have emanated from the fact that we have too much legislation and too much badly drafted legislation. We all agree—I am sure that the noble Lord will agree—that what we need is more pre-legislative scrutiny. At the moment we have five Bills in pre-legislative scrutiny. Does this mean that we will only have five Bills in the next Queen’s Speech?

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition reiterates an old saw. I can assure her that we have not been any more ambitious in this session than her party was in the first Session of the previous Government. There are a good number of Bills in pre-legislative Committee at the moment—the noble Baroness said there were five, I thought there might have been six—I am sure that there will be more, and equally sure that there will be more than five Bills when we get to the Queen’s Speech.

European Council

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement by the Prime Minister.

On Libya, I join him in expressing deep and abiding gratitude to members of the British Armed Forces. Over the last seven months in Libya, once again our service men and women have been a credit to our nation. We take pride in their role and in the role of NATO. We on these Benches have maintained that, after UN Security Council Resolution 1973, there was not just a right but a responsibility to act—a responsibility to the Libyan people and a responsibility to uphold the will of the United Nations. That is why we have supported the Government in their actions.

If I may, through the Leader of the House, I commend the Prime Minister on the role that he has played in taking the right and principled decisions on this issue. It is for the Libyan people to determine their future, but they must do it in the knowledge that the international community, including the European Union, stands ready to provide support. Do the Government agree that alongside the responsibility to protect is the responsibility to help rebuild and, in particular, to provide the expertise that the new Libya will require? We all have great hopes for the future of Libya, and its people rightly have high expectations and aspirations. Does the noble Lord agree, however, that embedding institutional and structural change in Libya will take time? We must not be too impatient.

I now turn to Europe. We in this House all know that the other place is today debating the question of a referendum on remaining in the European Union and on other related matters. It is not our job in this House to replicate either the arguments within the Conservative Party over Europe, which have sharply re-emerged, or the political arguments of the other place. However, we on these Benches are clear, and we have been consistently clear, that getting out of the European Union is not in our national interest. Does the noble Lord the Leader agree that cutting ourselves off from our biggest export market makes no sense for Britain? The overwhelming majority of British business, whatever their feelings may be about this or that aspect of the EU, knows that too. What is more, at this moment of all moments, the uncertainty that would ensue from Britain turning inwards over the next two years to debate an in/out referendum is something that, frankly, our country cannot afford.

The context for the debate about Europe is the huge dangers facing the UK and eurozone economies. Growth has stalled in Britain since the autumn and is now stalling in Europe. Unemployment is rising—a particular concern is youth unemployment—and we now face the threat of a new banking crisis. That is why acting together is so important. We need to stop standing on the sidelines. I welcome the commitment in the Statement that all decisions relating to the single market should be taken by the 27 member states; that is right. It is important, though, that Britain should at least be present in all discussions pertaining to the European Union. My fear is that, with a strong inner core, Britain is going to be sidelined in discussions generally, not just those relating to economic policy.

We should have been arguing for weeks, probably for months, that the problems of Greece were not being met by the austerity solution. We should have been pointing out the need for the recapitalisation of the banks. We should have been arguing for a plan for growth in Europe. So I have some questions for the Leader of the House.

On banking, do the Government believe that the amount of recapitalisation being discussed is sufficient to ensure financial stability across the European banking systems? In particular, can the Government explain why the estimates of recapitalisation at €100 billion by the European authorities are half the €200 billion that the IMF suggested was needed?

On Greece, do the Government believe that the lessons of previously announced Greek bailouts are being learnt and that this bailout will provide a genuinely sustainable solution?

On growth, do the Government understand that Europe will not get to grips with its debt problems until it gets to grips with its crisis of growth? What actions will the Government be taking to work with colleagues across the European Union to ensure growth across our continent?

Jobs and growth must be our priorities in the EU. We do not believe that it is in Britain’s interests to see the Conservative Party—not, significantly, the coalition as a whole—trying to resurrect its old issues of trying to get out of the Social Chapter, to withdraw employment rights and to renegotiate Britain's membership of the EU. This matters because in December the Prime Minister is likely to be negotiating with our European allies on the nature of treaty change and what Britain wants out of this. We say that it is not in the interests of Britain for us to spend our political capital trying to water down employment rights by getting rid of four weeks’ paid holiday and maternity leave provision. That will not help jobs and growth in Britain.

Instead, the completion of the single market—CAP reform, budget reform, reform of state aids policy—should be our priority. The Government’s job is to act in the national interest and in the interests of Europe and the world economy. With globalisation, isolation cannot be the answer. Our national interests have to be considered in the wider economic context. As the debate in the other place is showing today, the Government are entangling these interests with the interests of the Conservative Party.

The issues facing Europe are serious—too serious to see Britain’s national interests being caught up in party interests. We on these Benches urge the Government to put their party interests aside and act in the national interest, because by working with and within the EU we will then be able to deal with our crisis of jobs and growth. We urge the Leader of the House now to make a clear statement that it will indeed be jobs and growth that will be the real priority for our Government in the European Union.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for the tribute she paid to the people of Libya who have fought so bravely over the course of the last seven months, and some for far longer, against the tyranny and dictatorship represented by Colonel Gaddafi. I also thank the noble Baroness for what she said about our Armed Forces and for commending the Prime Minister. I very much agree with what she said. I also agree that embedding change will take time and that the process will be long and difficult. We, the European Union and many others will be involved in that. Libya is an important country and we have been much involved with it. It is right that we should continue to help and support the National Transitional Council and the new regime, whenever that comes, for as long as they want us.

On the European Union, the noble Baroness began by saying there was no need for this House to replicate the debate happening today in the House of Commons. I agree with that, although I am sure that there will be an opportunity in the next 20 minutes or so of Back-Bench time to deal with some of these issues. The noble Baroness reminded us that the Labour Party is opposed to leaving the EU. She did not tell us about its line on joining the euro, but I am sure that that was an omission. The noble Baroness shakes her head, so I presume that means the Labour Party would not join at the moment. That is a good thing indeed.

The noble Baroness said that we needed to act together. I agree with that. It is the same reason why we are opposed to an in/out referendum. We need to act together. Major decisions are being taken about the single market—both this weekend and again on Wednesday—which is something that successive British Governments and British Prime Ministers have been championing since the days of Margaret Thatcher. The single market is an immensely important mechanism for us. The fact that the single market is not yet complete is something that should concern us; the fact that the European Commission now wishes to complete it is something that we should welcome enormously. I also agree that these decisions should be taken by the 27 member countries and not by a small group. The noble Baroness fears that we may be sidelined during the course of this process if there is a core eurozone caucus, for want of a better word. We would very much like to avoid that, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about.

The noble Baroness asked some specific questions, particularly about the amount of recapitalisation that has taken place in the banks and whether it is enough to ensure future stability. That was exactly what the ECOFIN meeting was about on Saturday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spent 10 hours in the meeting to ensure that the system in place was proper and correct. As far as whether lessons have been learnt from previous bailouts, decisive action has been taken and it was right to do so.

Where I agree most with the noble Baroness is on growth. This has slowed in Europe and there are a number of structural reasons for that, such as bureaucratic centralisation. We will not get to grips with many of the financial problems without addressing the growth issues. That is why we support what the European Commission is doing on growth, particularly on completing the single market. What is also required is real political leadership. I am pleased that in this country at least, in the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor, we have a united leadership developing the way forward.

I will not join the noble Baroness in her praise of the Social Chapter. I take the view that all those things that the noble Baroness thinks are important are important, too, but they could just as well be decided in a British Parliament by British Members of Parliament and, indeed, British Peers.

The noble Baroness finished by saying that these are serious questions, which is right. The issue of Europe is always taken immensely seriously, not least in this House. I like to think that we always put the national interest first; that is one of the reasons why I am a member of this Government. These are extremely difficult and complicated times, and it is vital that we put the national interest first to get the solutions that we need.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord the Leader of the House’s question about the euro, I remind the House that it was my Government who decided not to go into the euro and that they did so in the national interest.

Legislative Timetable

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 6th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I broadly agree with the noble Baroness. She will welcome the fact that the Government are committed to promoting other forms of scrutiny and have already published a number of Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny in this Session alone. We are currently scrutinising in pre-legislative scrutiny some six Bills, including clauses relating to individual electoral registration and electoral administration.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

In relation to the PVSC Bill, I suggest that noble Lords may wish to look at comments made recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on the boundary proposals. Many noble Lords, and certainly colleagues down the Corridor, might think that we did a jolly good job in this House.

Does the Leader of the House agree that it is preferable for this House to sit in the same weeks as the House of Commons? We are two Houses but one Parliament. Can we have the noble Lord’s assurance that next year we will not sit during party conference weeks? To do otherwise is not good for the smooth running of business, not good for Parliament and not good for politics. Some of us in this House are proud to be politicians and we wish to participate in our party conferences.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have received a number of representations from noble Lords all around the House who are very opposed to sitting in September and would infinitely prefer to sit earlier in October and sometimes even later in July. That is something that it is right for the usual channels to discuss. Of course we are one Parliament. We are also two Houses. We have different rules and regulations and are not the same in that respect. We deal with legislation very differently.