Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, the breadth of wisdom, experience and accomplishments of Her Majesty the Queen, as well as the extent and depth of her service to our nation, are such that a single Member of your Lordships’ House can never do her justice. Most noble Lords have spoken of that service and of her great contribution. As Her Majesty’s Master of the Horse, I want to focus on the aspects of the Queen’s life which involve horses, an area where I like to think she gets her enjoyment, relaxation and excitement, but where she also makes a significant contribution to our public life.

Perhaps her best-known equestrian passion is for her racehorses. She has owned winners of all five English classics, except—tantalisingly—the Derby, in which her Aureole came second in 1953. Aureole, incidentally, itself sired a Derby winner. Among her best horses were Carrozza, which won the Oaks in 1957; Pall Mall, which won the 2,000 Guineas in 1958; Highclere, which won the 1,000 Guineas in 1974; Dunfermline, which won both the Oaks and the St Leger in 1977, an astonishing performance; and Estimate, which, despite not winning a classic, was one of her best horses, winning the Queen’s Vase in 2012 and the Gold Cup the following year. Each of these horses won other important races and Her Majesty has had, and continues to have, other very high-class and successful horses; these are just some of her bigger winners.

Despite the difficulty of competing at the top today, against the world’s massive racing establishments, which are equipped to breed a multitude of foals to produce one good one, compared to Her Majesty’s relatively modest number of brood mares, I think I am right in saying that the Queen had her highest ever number of winners last year and has had no fewer than five winners in the month of May this year alone—and, in addition, five seconds. She looks sure to have a fistful of runners at Royal Ascot.

The Queen’s approach to the breeding of racehorses is that of an intellectual. Which bloodline will nick with which? Is the aim a sprinter or a classic horse? What are the logistics of getting the mare to the stallion, many of the best of which are overseas? The breeding of racehorses is a long-term game. The classics are run by three year-olds and the planning of the breeding will not have been undertaken overnight. Luckily, patience is an asset of which the Queen is not in short supply. The naming of racehorses is, for the Queen, something akin to an advanced crossword. What would one call a foal by the stallion Night of Thunder, out of a mare called Free Verse, but Slipofthepen?

Other noble Lords have commented on the Queen’s sense of humour. We were discussing the other day a horse she was, unusually, rather disappointed with. At the age of 96, she told me, “I could run faster than it in gumboots”.

Her Majesty’s expertise is not restricted to racehorses. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said, at the Royal Windsor Horse Show two weeks ago she entered, among others, her homebred Highland mare, Balmoral Leia. Leia triumphed, not only in her class but as champion, and then as supreme champion in- hand mountain and moorland pony.

The Queen takes a considerable interest in breeding and has been a strong supporter of some our rarer breeds, just some examples of which are the fell pony and the Cleveland bay, the latter important to the world of carriage driving in general and the Royal Mews in particular. The Queen also pays considerable attention to the life after racing of her horses, a notable example of which is her retrained racehorse Barbershop, formerly trained by Nicky Henderson, which ran with distinction in the Queen’s colours, winning eight races and being placed in the 2009 King George VI Chase. He followed this up with a string of successes in the show ring.

The Queen is well known to be an excellent horse- woman and horse-master herself, most notably when riding in her birthday parade in 1981. As my noble friend the Leader mentioned, when a teenager let off a starting pistol next to her, her charger, Burmese, bounced, but Her Majesty patted its neck and carried on as if nothing had happened. She rode in nearly 40 birthday parades between 1947 and 1986, 16 of them on Burmese, a gift from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and has subsequently attended in a carriage.

I had a stark personal experience of the Queen’s horse-mastership when accompanying her round the stables at the Royal Mews before Christmas in 2019—so, comparatively recently. We came to one rather excitable young horse whose stable door had been flung open, between the sovereign and which there was only fresh air—and not very much of it. As its forefeet left the ground, I was calculating how it would be possible for me to insert myself between the Queen and the horse, bearing in mind that I had to navigate around or over either the Crown equerry or the head coachman, to neither of whom it appeared to have occurred that a disaster of global importance was about to occur. While I was still working on it, and indeed while said horse’s feet were still airborne, the monarch lifted a forefinger and firmly said, “No”—at which the horse in question sprang to attention, and disaster was averted.

I know that the entire horse world, like the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, would want to record its huge congratulations to the Queen on yet another extraordinary achievement in her Platinum Jubilee.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, others have spoken and will speak about the huge range of interests and skills that the Duke of Edinburgh possessed. As Master of the Horse, I will focus on his contribution to equestrianism and equestrian sports. His Royal Highness was, from an early age, a keen sportsman, playing cricket and hockey with great dexterity and, in the late 1940s, he began an active polo career. He quickly became a remarkable player, twice leading his team to victory in the gold cup for the British open and founding the Guards Polo Club at Windsor. Prince Philip reached a handicap of five, taking the sport much more seriously than most amateur players.

By the time that he retired from active polo in 1971, he had developed a love for carriage driving, taking it up competitively in the 1970s. After his second competition, the European championships, held at Windsor, he recalled:

“I came in not quite last, but very nearly.”


Ultimately, he represented Great Britain in six world and three European championships, in a career that spanned more than 10 years, becoming a world-class carriage driver and winning team gold in the 1980 world championship.

Prince Philip became president of the International Federation for Equestrian Sports—known by its French abbreviation, the FEI—in 1964, and served until 1986. A true leader, he recognised that more could be done to bring order to elite competition. Deeply involved, thanks to his true love for horses, His Royal Highness channelled his passion into driving standards up across a broad range of equestrian sports, writing the rules for international carriage-driving competitions and introducing new disciplines.

While, in the equestrian world, his name is most closely associated with carriage driving and polo, he instigated the FEI Jumping Nations Cup series—now a major part of the elite athletes calendar—during his tenure as president of the FEI, and he actively encouraged the launch of the FEI Jumping World Cup. He was also instrumental in the creation of the FEI World Equestrian Games.

His Royal Highness became president of the Royal Windsor Horse Show in 1991 and took a close and personal interest. He had a watchful eye and your Lordships will not be surprised that he often made suggestions to the committee of ways to improve the show and its competition. He created the Prince Philip pony club games, and the nation’s competition at Windsor was a highlight that demonstrated his interest in youth development.

St Matthew, at chapter 5, verse 15, says:

“Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel”.


His Royal Highness used all his considerable assets to shine a light on equestrian sports, in the United Kingdom, around the Commonwealth and internationally. His passion for all things equestrian was of course shared by the Queen and passed on to their children, particularly the Prince of Wales, who was also a successful polo player, and the Princess Royal, the first member of the British Royal Family to compete at an Olympic Games, who succeeded him as president of the FEI.

The Duke of Edinburgh was an honorary member of the Jockey Club from 1947, and enthusiastically supported the Queen in her great passion for racing. The Duke of Edinburgh handicap was named for him at Royal Ascot. A high point was his presenting the Queen with the Queen’s Vase after Estimate won that race in 2012. Not to be outdone, he had owned the winner of the 1968 English Greyhound Derby.

He was an extraordinarily fearless horseman, and his impact on equestrian sport is remarkable. He was famously direct and much enjoyed the company of the family of carriage drivers, who regarded him truly as one of them, and of his grooms, who were devoted to him, not least for his interest in them. You knew when he was not entirely approving of something, be it the design of a horse-box, the way someone was driving a pair or a team, or something being in the wrong place in the picnic box. He expressed himself very clearly when that happened, but he was excellent company and had a fund of amusing and often apocryphal stories from his own life. He was a man of incredible energy and a great sense of humour. The equestrian community joins the rest of the nation, the Commonwealth and indeed the world in mourning the loss of a remarkable man, and in sending our condolences to Her Majesty and the Royal Family.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, although I voted in the referendum, I did not campaign in the run-up to it because despite believing, on balance, that we would be better off out, there were genuine and strong arguments on both sides. However, we are where we are, and we now need to get on with it. Before I go further, I must declare an interest as a beneficiary of payments under the common agricultural policy.

I listened carefully to the debate yesterday and this morning. Much of it has been fighting last year’s battle. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take the rather novel course of making a speech on the Second Reading of the Bill before us. Many issues have been raised and amendments have already been tabled that deal with all manner of matters, and I have no doubt that there will be more to come. I intend to address only three key areas that have been raised in another place and are covered by amendments that have already been tabled here.

The first is EU nationals living here and their right to continue to do so. That is something that many of us—if not all of us—would wish to see. The Government have said that they are prepared to give them that right and that it must be reciprocal, with our citizens living in EU countries being given the same right. There is pressure unilaterally to give EU citizens the right to continue to live here, but it is in the nature of negotiations that related and reciprocal matters are dealt with together. If one point is conceded, this risks losing the reciprocal point, so by definition, to do this would run the risk of British citizens currently living in another EU country losing the right to continue to reside in that country. That would be grossly unfair on them, and that is why I would resist any attempt to insist upon the unilateral approach.

The second issue I want to address is that of scrutiny by Parliament between the triggering of Article 50 and the completion of the process two years later. In this context, scrutiny means two principal things: the provision of information and allowing time to debate it. I have no problem with allowing plenty of time for debate. As regards the provision of information, the Government have said that they would provide Parliament with the same information that the EU Parliament receives. That seems fair and right, but as far as the provision of additional information is concerned, I look to my career as a negotiator. I negotiated a significant number of corporate acquisitions and disposals in Europe and the Far East during that career. One of the golden rules of negotiating is that information about your counter party’s position and the detail of what is important to them, is gold-dust. You learn everything you can about their backstop positions, what they will negotiate on and what they cannot, the intricate details of their financial position and things that might not seem important but might later prove to be. It is a forensic science, and it makes all the difference to the outcome. Any information about our position that comes into the possession of the large number of people and institutions that make up our counter party—the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and their various members—will be used against us. That is why I would resist the provision of additional information.

My third issue, impact assessments, is closely related. I have explained my reasons for strongly resisting the provision of information to this Parliament beyond that provided to the European Parliament. An impact assessment on Brexit, if it were to be of any value, would reveal information about our options and negotiating position which would be hugely valuable to our counterparty, the negotiating representatives of the EU. That information would, without a shadow of doubt, be used against us by them. I am afraid that confidentiality arrangements that allow limited access to documents have a habit of failing to prevent leaks, so I do not find that suggestion of any comfort. As such, I resist any proposal for impact assessments.

Those are my views on three key areas. Many other issues have been and will be raised, and I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords still to speak, to the Minister’s response and to debates at subsequent stages.

Arrangement of Business

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the House do now adjourn for 10 minutes.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in view of the fact that the second Statement has not yet started in the other place, I am afraid that I am going to have to beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure, I suggest for 10 minutes.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, in the 20 minutes that we have had for this European Council Statement, not a single female Member of this House apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was able to subject the Government to scrutiny. I therefore wonder whether the House will consent to hear me put a question to the noble Lord the Leader on the European Council. My question is to do with the banking union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am very grateful for that. I have very broad shoulders on these things, but it demonstrates that I made yet another mistake in giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

As for the noble Lord, Lord Myners, let everybody just remember what his role was in all this as a very senior Minister in the Treasury in the previous Government.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now started, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

News Corporation: Conduct of Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the Prime Minister was invited to make a Statement by the leader of the Opposition, who was clearly trying to play politics. I do not want to offend the noble Lord, who is a distinguished Cross Bencher, but those of us better versed in the means of politics can see what is going on utterly clearly; it is as clear as daylight. I am under the impression that everything the Secretary of State was required to do during the bid process, he did. He accepted an offer of undertakings by BSkyB, but he referred them as well; and of course when the undertakings were themselves withdrawn, the full referral then took place. As for the role of the Permanent Secretary, I think that I have said everything I can possibly say about that.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the time has come for us to move back into the other debate.

Phone Hacking

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we have 10 more minutes. Can the noble Lords decide which of them is to go first?

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, the Prime Minister referred in his Statement to consulting with the Cabinet Secretary on an amendment to the Ministerial Code for the recording of all meetings “regardless of the nature of the meeting”. Does this include formal and informal meetings and official and unofficial meetings, if they exist? How is he describing them?

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, there are a number of problems with Amendment 31. The first is that we have not debated it yet. We have not agreed it. Logically, if we are to have a structured debate, it should start with Amendment 31. The problem is that we would be debating Amendment 1 all over again.

[Lord De Mauley]

Following the advice of the noble Lord opposite, I beg to move that the Committee do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.10 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

I am going to have to crave your Lordships’ indulgence and ask if we can have a further adjournment during pleasure until 9.20 pm.

Sitting suspended.

Agriculture: CAP Direct Payments

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livsey of Talgarth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have reached conclusions on the findings of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-funded Dutch Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) study of the likely impact on United Kingdom farmers if common agricultural policy direct payments were removed by 2013.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a recipient of the single farm payment. The Dutch Agricultural Economics Research Institute’s report, commissioned by the previous Government, is an academic exercise to look at a hypothetical scenario. It should be noted that the data are from 2004 to 2006—a time when exchange rates were unfavourable to the United Kingdom—and fail to account for the 70 per cent increase in UK farm incomes that has since occurred. Finally, there is no chance of direct payments being withdrawn by 2013.

[Lord Livsey of Talgarth]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but does he not agree that the LEI report indicates that 35 per cent of farms in the UK would become financially unviable if Pillar 1 payments were withdrawn, while 83 per cent of all EU farms would remain viable? Will he seek to reverse the previous Defra policy of abolishing single farm payments, as that would save many UK livestock farms that depend on those payments for their financial viability? The alternative is land abandonment. This subject is very important.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I acknowledge the first half of my noble friend’s contention, but in my initial Answer I explained that the report data are somewhat out of date and that there have been fairly substantial changes in the economic position for farmers since then. My noble friend is right that the financial perspective for 2014 to 2020 will be negotiated in a scenario of much more limited financial resources being available than before. The Government’s view is that Pillar 2 represents a more effective use of those limited resources. However, I am really not expecting direct payments to disappear immediately under the next financial perspective.

[Lord Tomlinson]

As the noble Lord is a member of a Government who are more and more committed to the role of market forces but is not committing himself imminently to change, what plans do he and the Government have for introducing market forces to agriculture, thus contributing to the savings that they are looking for in every other area of public expenditure?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, no one thinks that this is going to be easy. In my experience, however, there are very few farms that can claim that they have exhausted all potential for making more efficiencies, so I take the noble Lord’s point. Many would benefit from training to improve skills, especially in business management, cost reduction and better marketing strategies, such as through producer organisations. As a whole, the EU has been falling badly behind its global competitors in productivity growth over the past 30 years and the Government are working hard on how this can be reversed.

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, will the Minister consider—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

I am most grateful. Will the Minister reassure the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that successive French Governments have stated repeatedly that there will be no change whatsoever to single farm payments after 2013? Will he also therefore reassure the British taxpayer that they will continue to pay for French farming for the foreseeable future?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord is a noted cynic on this subject. I assure him that the British Government will be negotiating hard at EU level for a reform to the CAP.

[Lord Redesdale]

My Lords, I apologise. I was slightly confused by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, because he said, “This side”, and the Front Bench opposite agreed with him. Will there be any move to deal with the power of the supermarkets in setting prices, which is having a detrimental effect, especially on hill farmers in livestock areas? Indeed, it is one of the major causes of depressed incomes for livestock farmers.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I very much take my noble friend’s point. He should be aware that the coalition programme for government, which was published on 18 May, made a commitment to introduce an ombudsman in the OFT to enforce the groceries and supply code of practice and to curb abuses of power that act against the long-term interest of both consumers and farmers.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, what strategy are the Government putting in place to build up support among other member states for CAP reform and for promoting our interests? Given that the Lisbon treaty now gives the European Parliament a bigger say in agricultural policy, how are Conservative Ministers and MEPs planning to get support there beyond the small and very motley group of allies that they have at present?

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Baroness is right that negotiation needs to go on at EU level; indeed, I can confirm that comprehensive negotiations are continuing. She is also right that it is now a matter of codecision, so those negotiations will need to go on with MEPs.

[The Lord Bishop of Blackburn]

My Lords, the Minister has already heard that land abandonment is likely to be one of the greatest challenges for a future CAP. The potential loss of upland farms could have a large impact in my diocese and, I know, in many other areas. What consideration is being given to preventing this from happening in future?

[Lord De Mauley]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that question. We recognise that the future of the uplands is a matter of considerable concern to a great many people and organisations. We have a wide range of policies and schemes in hand—the uplands entry level scheme and others—to address individual issues raised by the Commission for Rural Communities. We recognise the potential of the uplands for generating greater public goods and we are working on unlocking that.

[Lord Grantchester]

I declare an interest as a farmer receiving payments. Does the Minister agree that, to capture improved returns, agriculture needs to move beyond primary processing and up the value-added chain? What is Defra doing to help in this regard?

[Lord De Mauley]

I agree with that. I have explained a bit about what we think is the right way to go in terms of competitiveness. I will leave it at that for today.

Barnett Formula

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barnett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to change the Barnett formula.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Government recognise the concerns expressed by your Lordships’ Select Committee report on the Barnett formula, the Holtham commission on Welsh funding and other commentators on the system for devolution funding. However, as set out in the coalition programme for government, at this time the priority must be to reduce the deficit, and therefore any change to the system must await the stabilisation of the public finances.

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, the noble Lord must know that he has not answered my Question. The Select Committee to which he referred unanimously pointed out that approximately £1,600 per head more is spent in public expenditure in Scotland than in England, which has serious implications for the coming cuts. The Select Committee, which included a former Conservative Chancellor and two former Conservative Secretaries of State for Scotland, unanimously recommended that the system should be changed and based on need. What is he going to do? Is he going to do nothing at all?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, not only for producing his eponymous formula at the end of the 1970s, when he was a much respected Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but also for his powerful arguments in recent years for change. He of course knows more than I will ever know about the Barnett formula, and he makes a valid point; and the coalition understands his concerns very clearly. However, I am sure that he will be among the first to acknowledge that, in the light of the grave financial situation that the country faces, it would be wrong for a new Government to rush to a decision on this complicated matter.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, perhaps I may assist my noble friend. I entirely agree that the number one objective—the Government are right—must be to reduce the appalling size of the deficit. If he re-reads the unanimous report of the Select Committee to which he referred, he will discover that its recommendations would assist that task, not fly in the face of it. I hope he will embrace it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. We recognise the force of the arguments and are carefully considering the various reports. There is as yet no consensus on exactly what a needs-based assessment would take account of. In the mean time, the coalition’s priority, as I have said, is to reduce the deficit.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, given that the Barnett formula funds on the basis of population and not need, does the Minister agree that it is profoundly unfair to overfund Scotland by the extent of some £4 billion to £5 billion a year, while requiring underfunded local authorities in the rest of the country to make further savage cuts as their contribution to reducing the deficit?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in circumstances where the public sector debt is approaching £900 billion and the PBR forecast for 2009-10 is for net additional borrowings of £156 million, or about 11 per cent of GDP, I am surprised to hear that the noble Baroness thinks that the Barnett formula is a more urgent matter.

[Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, is it not the case that the whole economic and financial landscape has changed so fundamentally over the past 30 years that a rough and ready yardstick of calculation, as it was then, now becomes something utterly inequitable; and that if there is no radical change, parts of the United Kingdom, such as the land and nation of Wales, will suffer the perpetuation of this inequity? Is it therefore a matter not of waiting for events to happen but of radically tackling a massive injustice?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Government hear what the noble Lord and other noble Lords say. However, while we recognise the concerns expressed by, for example, the Holtham commission, as I said, the priority must at the moment be to tackle the deficit.

[Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay]

Thank you, my Lords. The Labour Benches have already had two questions.

Does the Minister agree that, unlike its author, the Barnett formula is now well past its sell-by date? Does he recognise particularly the concerns expressed so thoroughly by the Holtham commission on the whole system of public sector or devolution funding? While obviously accepting that the deficit is the immediate problem, does he not also accept that moving towards fairness between all four nations of the United Kingdom is an important part of getting the deficit sorted?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I have just said that we recognise the concerns expressed by the Holtham commission, and the Government are listening to what noble Lords are saying.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I was under the impression that the Liberal Democrats were part of the Government. I know that we need to sort out the protocol, but they really have to get used to what they have sold their souls for. They really do.

May I ask the noble Lord, with all lack of respect to my noble friend Lord Barnett, whether it is not about time that the Barnett formula was simply allowed to die? Should we not let it rest happily in its grave until we can come back to invent a new formula?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the dulcet words of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, when he was a Minister answering almost an identical question, were along the lines that the Barnett formula is simple, robust, and it works. The coalition, on the other hand, and as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, implies, recognises that there are concerns over the allocation of funding. But, as I said, there are other priorities.

Government Spending

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to an urgent Question asked in another place earlier today. The Statement is as follows.

“Mr Speaker, I am extremely grateful both to you and the shadow Chancellor for this opportunity to update the House on the urgent and decisive action which the Government have taken to tackle the economic mess which we inherited from the last Government. I refer the House to the Written Ministerial Statement that I laid in the House this morning, which sets out the details of this early action.

The last Government were borrowing an extra £3 billion each week. These huge public debts threaten financial stability and, if left unchecked, would derail the economic recovery. We need not look far across our own continent to see that action to tackle our budget deficit is both urgent and necessary. This is only the first step in a long road to restoring good management of our public finances.

I have set out in a Written Ministerial Statement this morning the details of the spending cuts that we will make for government departments in 2010-11. We have found cuts totalling £6.243 billion—£243 million more than originally targeted. However, the budgets for health, international development and defence will not be reduced, and we have been able to take the important decision to protect the budgets for schools, Sure Start and spending on 16 to19 year-olds in 2010-11.

The devolved Administrations will have the option of making their savings this year or deferring their share of the savings until the next financial year. They will also receive their share of the additional spending as agreed.

We will help local government to deliver their savings by removing the ring-fences around over £1.7 billion of grants to local authorities in 2010-11, consistent with our belief in giving more freedom to local government.

Our first priority is to cut out waste. We cannot expect difficult decisions to be taken on spending until we have eliminated waste. We expect departments to make savings which include: around £1.15 billion in cutting discretionary areas such as consultancy, advertising and travel costs; £1.7 billion from delaying and stopping contracts and projects, including immediate negotiations to achieve cost reductions from the 70 major suppliers to government; £600 million from cutting the costs of quangos; and at least £120 million from freezing Civil Service recruitment. We will drive these and other savings through a new Efficiency and Reform Group, drawing on expertise within government and funded from within existing budgets.

This action is designed to send a shock wave through government departments, to focus Ministers and civil servants on whether spending in these areas is really a priority in the difficult times we are now facing.

As well as reducing waste and the costs of government, we have started work to scale back lower-priority spending. We will pass legislation to end child trust fund payments that will save £320 million in 2010-11, rising to £520 million in 2011-12, but the House will be pleased to learn that some savings will be reinvested to provide respite breaks for disabled children.

Quangos across government will have to make major savings in their budgets. Regional development agencies will have to cut back on spending which has the lowest economic impact.

Finally, we have decided to allocate £500 million in 2010-11 to measures to invest in improving our growth potential and building a fairer society, and £150 million will be used to help to deliver up to 50,000 adult apprenticeship starts.

Following the shambles under the previous Government of the colleges capital programme, an extra £50 million will be allocated to help to fund capital investment in those FE colleges in most need. We are also allocating an additional £170 million to fund investment in social rented housing in 2010-11 to help deliver 4,000 social housing starts, and we will freeze backdated business rates payments under the eight-year schedule of payments, including businesses in ports, until April 2011. We will consider any further action in this area and bring forward any plans before the freeze ends.

These are only the first steps which we will need to take to put our public finances back in shape. The public and the House will welcome the fact that we now have a Government who have the determination to act but who will also cut with care”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for his Question, and indeed for his kind words when he opened his speech. I congratulate him on his new role and welcome him to the Dispatch Box. He says that the consequences of the cuts are not spelt out. I respond by saying that I understand that it is a subject about which he and his noble colleagues feel strongly. I point to the advice from the Governor of the Bank of England, who has said that he does not think that £6 billion of cuts will dramatically change the outlook for growth this year and that indeed they reduce some of the downside risk. That is backed up by advice from the Treasury. The Governor of the Bank of England has also said that the bigger risk at present, given the experience of the past two weeks, would be for the new Government not to put in place clear and credible measures to deal with the deficit.

The noble Lord asked specifically about cuts to the business department. In that regard, I simply say that cuts in specific departmental budgets have been agreed with the respective Secretaries of State. All of them are committed to ensuring that those cuts are made in a way that does not jeopardise front-line services. The noble Lord and his noble friends will have ample opportunity in the debate on the Queen's Speech to ask the respective Ministers about their position on these cuts.

The noble Lord also asked about the projected increase in unemployment and the likely effect on future business failures. He is quite right to say that these matters are extremely important. The Government's response is along the lines that the Governor of the Bank of England suggested: if the cuts were not pursued, higher interest rates would inevitably follow, which would lead to a worse situation for business and for employment.

As regards local government, we on these Benches believe that giving freedom to local authorities will enable them to meet the real priorities that they see locally. As the noble Lord will know, the LGA has said in its response to these spending cuts that it knows that they are necessary. It has identified substantial savings and welcomes radical decentralisation and the removal of ring fencing.

The noble Lord asked about child trust funds. Given the country's unprecedented budget deficit, we must make tough choices. In that context, the Government believe that it is not affordable to spend more than half a billion pounds each year on the child trust fund, when that money is not even accessible to people for up to 18 years. We believe that it is right to focus resources on spending, support and services to people now. However, the money that was allocated for extra payments into the child trust funds of children entitled to disability living allowance in future years will be recycled into other forms of support for disabled children. The noble Lord suggests that my right honourable friend revels in shock and awe. I respectfully remind him of the words with which the Statement closed: that the cuts will be made with care. They will be made with sensitivity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I think that is the protocol. I have two further questions for the Minister. First, is he aware that, as an annualised rate, the deficit—all this is premised on the huge increase in the deficit—was 2.5 per cent 18 months ago and is now 11.1 per cent? That has created a hole in the economic output against trend of about £50 million. Does he not find it totally incredible to say that that is the fault of public sector workers? Is it more likely to be the fault of the top 0.1 per cent of the population whose average wage is over £2 million? The benefit is going to those people, but the cost is because public expenditure has got to go up to pay for unemployment benefit and tax revenues will go down because of lower income tax and lower corporation tax.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for his question. He quite rightly points to the huge size of the deficit. He suggests that the Government somehow imply that it is the fault of public sector workers. There is no question that that is the suggestion. We are all in this together. I take his point, but there is no suggestion that public sector workers should bear more than their fair share of the burden.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, it might be the logical thing this afternoon for me simply to stand up, say “I agree with David Laws” and sit down again. However, although loyal members of this coalition, we do not intend to play quite such a supine role.

[Lord Newby]

Over the next few weeks, we will meet to decide exactly how we intervene in debates and, indeed, exactly where we sit. For today, we agree that it was necessary for the Government, in the light of the European economic circumstances, to take quick action to demonstrate their resolve on the budget deficit. On a specific point, I urge the Minister to abolish quickly those regional development agencies that are to be abolished, and to confirm quickly the status of those that are to remain so that they can continue with their valuable work.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. I am delighted that he said that he will be rigorous in his questioning. I thank him for his response on this point, and I will take back his point about RDAs to the department.

[Lord Soley]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will take that back to the department. I am also sure that at some stage he will come back to the noble Lord and tell him what he has to think. However, my main question right now goes back to the beginning of his Statement when he did again what he did in opposition: rubbish the British economy. While that was depressing in opposition, it is positively dangerous when you do that in government. There is a real danger of a double-dip recession. This is more like the 1930s, because of its international style, than the Conservative slumps of the 1980s and early 1990s. Will the Minister not confirm that if you talk down the British economy, people will believe you and you will help to trigger the second recession which just about everyone in industry and commerce generally is desperately trying to avoid?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for his question. I absolutely reject the assertion that the Government are talking down the British economy. I reiterate that the Governor of the Bank of England himself has said that he does not think that £6 billion of cuts will dramatically change the outlook for growth this year. He has also said that, given the bigger risk at present and the experiences of the past two weeks, it is absolutely crucial to put into place clear and credible measures to deal with the deficit.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, does my noble friend not think that, as we as an incoming Government now face the biggest mess that this country has had to face for years, it might have been more appropriate for the noble Lord speaking on behalf of the Opposition to express contrition for the mess that they have left behind and which the Government now have to tackle? Given the situation in Europe now—a very grave situation brought on in part by the fact that some Governments have failed to face up to their responsibilities and are not taking action early enough—it would have been criminal of this Government not to have taken early action to face this situation. It is incredible in this situation to see that the Opposition still appear to support the policy of no action yet. Would that not be the most disastrous approach for this Government to take?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord King for his supportive comments. Europe is indeed in a very grave situation, and it would be very dangerous if this Government did not take early action to make these cuts.

[Lord Kinnock]

May I confirm to the Minister that we on this side of the House do not favour inaction but oppose wrong action very strongly and will continue to do so through the coming months of examination? Will he answer my noble friend Lord Eatwell’s specific questions on outcomes, as the Government have been silent on this, despite opportunities? Will he for instance tell us the cost to the public purse of breaking or suspending contracts to the private sector? We have heard nothing on that.

Neither have we heard about the consequences for employment and small businesses of the action taken to make cuts this year of £6.25 billion. These issues are vital for a reason which I am sure the Minister will recognise; we are about to get 15 times £6 billion of cuts at the very least over the next few years. If the course that is now set is continued, I put it to him that we will get not a coalition for fairness but a corrosion of jobs, opportunity and growth.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, is very experienced in these matters. I agree with him on opposing wrong action, and we on these Benches look forward to the debates that he promises over the next few months. The Government wholeheartedly agree with him about the effect on employment and small businesses, but we differ in that we believe that high interest rates are what will really adversely affect small businesses and employment and that it is absolutely crucial to make the cuts about which we are talking. He asks a very specific question about the cost of breaking contracts. I am not in a position to answer that now, and I will do my best to respond to him in writing.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the removal of ring-fencing of certain funding to local authorities. Is he aware of the concern that sometimes local authorities will emphasise services such as waste removal and roads above services to vulnerable children and families because they are the most apparent to their voters? Will he monitor the effects of that change and ensure that it is not unfairly disproportionate on the most vulnerable? Will the removal of ring-fences directly affect services to vulnerable families?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his point. As I have said, the Government believe that giving freedom to local authorities will enable them to meet the real priorities in their local areas. I assure him that these matters will be monitored closely and that the most disadvantaged in society absolutely must be protected.

[The Earl of Onslow]

My Lords, is it not astonishing that, on listening to the questions from the opposition Benches, you would have thought that we were running a surplus? We are running an enormous deficit. Will my noble friend please encourage his colleagues to continue in attacking the most appalling economic heritage since Denis Healey, Mr Callaghan, Philip Snowden, Hugh Dalton or anyone else you care to mention in Labour Governments in the past who have left us in a similar mess to that which we are in now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for his helpful words. I assure him that I will indeed exhort my colleagues as he requests.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, any such cuts are likely to bear disproportionately on those who depend on public expenditure, notably the poorest people in the poorest regions of this country. What formula is being used? How does the noble Lord seek to protect vulnerable people and areas such as Wales which depend disproportionately on public expenditure?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I have just said that the Government agree that we must pay closest attention to the effect on the most disadvantaged in society. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, specifically asked about the devolved Administrations. At this stage, all that I can say is that we acknowledge that these cuts must be fair. While savings are to be made as a top priority, they must be done sensitively.

[Lord Burnett]

My Lords, will my noble friend encourage the Government to produce soon an accurate figure of the total accrued national debt, including the off-balance-sheet debt, such as the total PFI liabilities and the massive sums owing for unfunded public sector pensions? I am sure that that figure would help us in debates such as this.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Burnett for that point. As he is aware, there will be a Budget shortly, which will tackle the task he has suggested. There will also be established an Office for Budget Responsibility. Its job will be to root out and identify the items to which he specifically referred.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, given that many Conservative-controlled authorities have a zero-rate increase this year and cuts already, will the Minister explain in greater detail which of the services not ring-fenced do not assist the most vulnerable people? Which services specifically do his Government consider to be un-ring-fenced and therefore expendable?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for her kind question. It will be a principle of this Government that such matters will be for local government to decide.

[Lord Blackwell]

My Lords, will my noble friend be robust in rebutting the assumption from the opposition Benches that reductions in expenditure necessarily lead to reductions in outcomes? Does he accept that most businesses in this country that have to control their costs every year are well aware that removing waste and inefficiency is normally a way of delivering better services, by re-engineering the processes? Does he accept that, after a period of unparalleled growth in government expenditure, there is a huge target to go for in improving efficiency while improving services in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I entirely agree. The control of costs is vital; likewise the removal of waste, which does not necessarily lead to cuts in productivity.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I welcome the new Minister to his role and wish him well in the future. One of the issues that the coalition Government will face will be unemployment. Will he again consider giving a better answer to the Front-Bench questions about the consequences of this action and the number of jobs that will be lost? I advise him that if he cannot do so today and unless we get the full facts, this side will not let go of the issue of the options on jobs that will disappear when cuts come. The Government should take note that they will be required to tell us what the consequences of each of their cuts will be in future.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I share with the noble Lord a grave concern about unemployment. I point out to him that, at the end of 13 years of Labour government, unemployment was higher than it was at the beginning. We will do our level best to tackle unemployment and keep it under control.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the current national debt amounts to some £893 billion run up by the party opposite when they were in government, and that the responsible cuts that he is proposing today therefore amount to less than 1 per cent of the total? Would he care to speculate about the consequences for small businesses, for unemployment and for the most vulnerable if firm action were not to be taken to tackle the debt mountain that has been left for us?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bates is quite correct. I have said that the Government believe that the effect of not making cuts, feeding through into higher interest rates, would be vastly worse for small businesses and for unemployment than the effect of making those cuts.

[Lord Sewel]

My Lords, will the Minister finally give an answer to the question on the assessment of the effect on unemployment of the cuts that the Treasury has made? Will he simply give those numbers?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I can only refer the noble Lord back to my earlier answer that the effect would be worse if we did not make these cuts than if we do.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I shall follow up on my noble friend Lord Blackwell’s point. Does the Minister accept that one of the problems that the economy is facing is falling productivity, and that this is caused by the wall of money that has been thrown at the public sector? There would be enormous opportunities to make savings if actual productivity were raised in the public sector, and that would not affect front-line services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I am convinced that there are substantial increases in productivity to be made, despite making these cuts.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister has not been his usual frank self in responding to the question about front-line services, which are crucial to this debate. Nor has he been frank when he maintains that introducing cuts at this stage may not do irretrievable damage to the economy with a double-dip recession. After all, his party argued that in the general election and did not achieve a majority, while two other parties—the Liberal Democrat party included—argued the danger to the economy of cuts at this point. Why, therefore, is he persisting with this position?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Government believe that the line they are taking is the right one to achieve the best results for the country.

[Lord Cotter]

On the issue of increasing apprenticeships, which is very welcome, will the Government continue to look at ensuring that small businesses are able to engage in apprenticeships and are given assistance in that direction?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cotter for his question and for his kind comments on the Government’s actions proposed in the area of apprenticeships. I can assure him that we will keep a very close eye on its effects on small businesses.