Civil Service: Permanent Secretaries

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Conservative Party.

Patrick Finucane

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Strathclyde

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am very grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. Again it demonstrates what my noble friend Lord King said about the very real tensions that brought about what happened during that dark and miserable period in Ulster. We are all part of a process of moving on from that. Let me deal with the nub of what the noble Baroness said about other cases. If there was collusion here, what else was going on? The Government will carefully consider the conclusions of the report to assess whether it impacts on any other cases. There have been public inquiries, as the noble Baroness knows, into a number of other cases where collusion was alleged. What we have tried to do here is demonstrate that we are prepared to leave no stone unturned in examining these cases and that, where there has been wrongdoing, the Government are prepared to apologise.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, the Leader of the House was slightly unclear when talking about the attitude of the Irish Government. Given that there was a firm agreement between the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park, what is the attitude of the Irish Government to this issue?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I think what I said was that the position of the Irish Government has been well understood, and that they were in favour of a public inquiry. My right honourable friend spoke to the Taoiseach this morning. They will want to read the report as well and come to their own conclusions, but those conclusions are a matter for the Irish Government.

House of Lords: Peers

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any further plans to reduce the number of peers in the House of Lords.

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

My Lords, the Government have no further plans for legislation to reform this House in this Parliament. As far as this Question is concerned, I encourage Peers to take voluntary retirement should they wish to cease taking part in the work of this House on a permanent basis.

[Lord Dubs]

Does the Leader of the House agree that this House is now far too large and that there is not a single Member of it who would be happy at further increases? What do the Government intend to do about the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel? I put to him one further suggestion that is a bit bolder. Why not suggest that, if anybody wishes to stay in this House, they drop their title but, if they leave the House, they can retain it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is a suggestion to add to the very many that have been proposed in recent years. As for my noble friend Lord Steel’s Bill, as the House knows, it passed through this House very easily. It is now in the House of Commons and has not yet been picked up by a Back-Bench Member. We will see what happens to it in the weeks ahead.

House of Lords: Membership

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 9th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to increase the current membership of the House of Lords, pending their current proposals for reform.

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

My Lords, in line with the coalition’s programme for government, the Government are working towards the objective of creating a second Chamber that reflects the share of the votes secured by the political parties at the last general election.

[Lord Dubs]

Oh. [Laughter.] My Lords, on 24 January, the Leader of the House said:

“There is no plan to pack the House with at least 60 government supporters. It would look absurd and it would be absurd”.—[Official Report, 24/1/12; col. 919.]

Given the Answer that he has just given to my Question, does he agree that it is doubtful whether he could find a single Member of this House who thinks that increasing its number is a good idea, both on grounds of cost and of making this House look even more absurd than it does with an increase in numbers? I ask the Government to think again about this stupid idea.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord can ask whatever he wants, but the Government’s position is the one I outlined in my original Answer. It is up to the Prime Minister, as it has been up to previous Prime Ministers, to decide whether he wishes to make more Peers. It is widely known that a draft Bill to reform your Lordships’ House is before a Joint Committee that may well turn into a Bill in the next Session of Parliament. But in any case, since the general election a number of deaths have sadly been recorded among your Lordships, which means that there has been a reduction from the high reached earlier on. Even if my right honourable friend the Prime Minister were to replace the number of Peers who have died, we would not be at the all-time high we saw recently.

Hereditary Peers

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 20th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I rather wish I had checked, because if I had done so I would have had a far clearer answer to the noble Lord’s question. The noble Lord is of course entirely correct about the Statute of Westminster. As to the other parts of his research, perhaps I might have the opportunity of examining that outside the House.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, odd as it may sound, I congratulate the Government on their proposals to alter the arrangements for the succession to the Crown. The Leader of the House said there was no urgency in the matter, yet if a member of the Royal Family, such as Prince William, were to have a child in the near future, the issue would be affected by this. Will the noble Lord comment on this and accept that there is an urgency to get on with it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

No, My Lords, I did not say there was no urgency in this particular matter; but in the matter of hereditary Peers, which is entirely different. We accept that there is an opportunity here and, as the previous question demonstrated, any amendment to the line of succession involves consulting those member states of the Commonwealth in which the Queen is head of state under the Statute of Westminster. There would also need to be legislation. Next week, there is a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government and in the margins of that we hope to make progress on this issue.

Summer Recess: Ministerial Cover

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords, but I am sure that the whole country was enormously reassured when the Prime Minister returned from holiday, took full control of the unfolding situation and, indeed, recalled Parliament.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, perhaps the Leader of the House will permit me to take a step to one side in my supplementary question. Is it the Government’s policy to encourage European Commissioners that there should always be a European Commissioner on duty in the month of August, or at least someone deputising for him? In my experience some years ago, there was a time in August when there was not a European Commissioner available and it was impossible to get a decision out of Brussels.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I wonder if at that time the European Union was better run with or without a European Commissioner on duty.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Strathclyde

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is likely that the salary would be set slightly lower than that of a Member of Parliament, but slightly higher than Members of the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments. It may be that the White Paper says what the noble Lord says, in which case it is an error. Transitional Members would continue on the same basis as currently—namely, they would receive the daily allowance.

On the question of transition, the draft Bill proposes that, with each third of elected Members coming in, a third of the House would depart. My noble friend Lord Steel has consistently said that there is a large number of Peers waiting to retire, so I suspect that a number of Peers would take the opportunity of the elections not to remain behind. Of those who did, if there were insufficient retirees then within the parties and the Cross Benches a decision would have to be taken. We have a precedent for that in 1999, when elections took place to reduce the numbers of Peers. There is no reason why that should not happen again.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, in supporting the move towards a democratically elected House, may I put two concerns to the Leader of the House? First, if we are to be elected once for 15 years there seems to me to be a singular lack of accountability. The point of being elected is that the voters should be able to throw one out and during those 15 years they will have no chance to do that. My second concern is that, if we are to have very large constituencies, who will determine the candidates? It will be not the ordinary people but the party machines. Could I urge on him that the constituencies should be small and that one should have to be re-elected to have proper democratic accountability?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, on the first point regarding accountability, what is envisaged here is to try and preserve the independence of party that is such a hallmark of this current House, but also to have the power and authority given by an elected mandate. While the noble Lord may be strictly right that there is no accountability if you cannot go back for re-election, those who would stand would make commitments to their electorate as to what they intended to do when they got here. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord says about the size of constituencies and about creating the link between the elector and the elected Member but that is a matter which, quite rightly, the Joint Committee will wish to look at in detail before coming up with its own proposals.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment in my name, Amendment 4, which is on a somewhat different issue, although it has been put in the same group—so, for the sake of speed, it is probably better that we discuss them as part of the same thing. I would not normally want to raise an issue like this, but there are two reasons why I feel it appropriate to do so on this Bill. First, we are being asked to agree to a referendum—and we as Members of this House will be allowed to vote in that referendum—that will determine how the voters of this country choose their MPs. Yet we in this House are not allowed to vote for MPs. This is a total anomaly. I do not want the Government to say, “That’s fine”, that they are persuaded by my argument, and then take away our right to vote in the referendum. But it is an anomaly in terms of logic; in the way that the provision is drafted, we have reached this somewhat illogical position.

My second reason for raising this matter is that I had the privilege of serving on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The chair of the committee wrote about the issue of Members of this House voting and received a reply from the Deputy Prime Minister. I shall quote three sentences from the letter, because they are relevant to this Bill and this amendment. I quote from the middle of the letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to the chair of the Human Rights Joint Committee on 25 January. He said:

“The Lords sit in their own right. The Commons are elected by the remainder of the estate of commoners to represent them in Parliament. There was therefore no case for the Lords to vote to elect representatives, since they were able to sit in Parliament anyway”.

He goes on to say:

“The fact that members of the House of Lords have a voice in Parliament makes it legitimate to deprive them of a right to have their voice also heard through their elected representative in the Commons”.

That is also not a very logical argument, I say with respect to the Deputy Prime Minister. The issue about voting in elections is about choosing a Government, not about having a voice here. Of course, we have that after the election, but this is about deciding and helping to influence who will vote. I appreciate that if we did have the vote, the turnout of Lords voting in elections would be pretty well 100 per cent, because I know that we would jolly well rush off and vote. But that is not the key point in the argument. It is rather anomalous, when many of us here canvass hard for our parties in elections, that we have to admit to our fellow canvassers that we do not have a vote at all—“I’m just doing it for you lot”. That is how it works. It is an anomaly.

I do not think that the Government will bow to this argument now but I hope that they will accept that the Bill is illogical in this respect, and say that it is something that we should be able to consider at an early stage in order to put right this anomaly. If the House of Commons decides to give prisoners the vote—I hope that they will, although many people do not agree—it will be even more anomalous for us to be left out of the equation.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken, and I wholly understand why the noble Baroness could not be here to move her amendment. It will be no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that the Government have no current plans to lower the voting age. I recognise that there are different views on the question of whether the voting age in this country should be lowered to 16, but if we are to have that debate, it needs to be had in relation to elections more generally, and the passage of the Bill does not provide the right platform. It was ingenious of the noble Lord to say that, because the referendum is of constitutional interest, the voting age should therefore be lowered on this one occasion, but I am afraid that it cut no ice with me.

We do not think that these amendments would be practically sensible in the context of this referendum. No doubt, when the dust has settled on the Bill, there will be opportunities seriously to debate longer-term issues on voting age. Although the noble Lord has had a good go on the Bill, we do not believe that this is the right place for such a provision. The same goes for the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He very carefully avoided the trap of saying that if we were to be logical, we should not give Peers the right to vote on the referendum. If we had done that, of course, he would have been the first to say that we should; and I think it is fair enough that we should.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may not have realised, and I do not think that it was his intention, but the way his amendment is drafted would in effect make it impossible to run the referendum properly. The amendment leaves the date for the referendum intact, but because of the way it is written at the moment, no one would be able to vote in the referendum. The amendment’s intention is that Peers cannot vote in the referendum until the restriction on their voting in parliamentary elections is removed, but, taken on its true legal meaning, the amendment would effectively mean that we would have to postpone the referendum entirely until such a time as Peers are no longer disqualified from voting in a Westminster parliamentary election.

These two amendments are grouped because we believe that it is right that we should not muddy the water on the Bill by dealing with these issues differently from the way that we have done. The House knows that the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to come forward soon with proposals on the future of this House and that he is chairing a committee which comprises Members from all three major political parties. I am sure that in the course of debate on that subject we will, over time, reach greater clarity on the subject of Peers voting—if they are still to be called Peers—in general elections and in other elections as they come up. I hope that, on that basis, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

Public Disorder: Policing

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 13th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, on my noble friend’s first question, I think we all regret that Members of either House could not arrive at Parliament and leave easily on Thursday afternoon. However, pedestrian access was maintained at all times.

On my noble friend’s second question, she may well say that good could have come out of bad. However, the Government, more strategically, are looking at ways of improving the Parliament Square situation, and I hope that an announcement will be made shortly.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, may I express my sympathy for the difficulties in which the police found themselves, and my admiration for the way in which, by and large, they handled the event? I have two questions. First, the Statement says that those who wished to leave the area of containment and,

“to leave via Whitehall were able to do so”,

but a lot of people in the media have commented that they could not leave. Is there any doubt that the demonstrators who wanted to go down Whitehall to get away from the area of containment could do so?

Secondly, I find what happened to the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall slightly puzzling. Those of us who were Ministers in Northern Ireland had the benefit of close protection officers who phoned ahead at all times and who would never have got me into that difficulty, and I fail to see why those of us, like me, who were Ministers were better protected than the Royal Family. Something seems to have gone badly wrong.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, on the first point, about being able to leave the area of containment, my understanding is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said: that those who wanted to leave, and to do so peacefully, were given the opportunity to do so through Whitehall. Furthermore, I gather that many thousands of individuals chose to take that route.

On the second question, the noble Lord is quite right; something went badly wrong. That is why there is to be a security review. It is not my place to pre-empt or second-guess that review, but I am sure that it will take into account everything that the noble Lord said about his experiences in Northern Ireland.

Saville Inquiry

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Strathclyde

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, no one seeks to justify the campaign of paramilitaries, whatever side they came from, or indeed the deaths that have occurred over the past 40 years in Northern Ireland as a result of that campaign. We have moved a long way from that stage. A number of agreements have been struck, and we now have a great opportunity to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland, which I know my noble friend wholly supports.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I was a Minister in Northern Ireland when the report was initiated, and I have waited a long time for the results as we have seen them today. There cannot be many countries that could be quite so honest about wrongs that they had committed in the past, and I hope that that will be a signal to other countries as well when they look at what we have done.

It is important that at least one clear conclusion has come out: that the civilians who were shot were unarmed and in no way a threat to peace and law and order in Derry on that day. Above all, we need time to consider the report and I hope that we can resist the temptation to come to too many conclusions at this stage. Otherwise, we are doing an injustice to the work that has gone into the report and, indeed, to the many witnesses who have given evidence. However, I have three particular hopes on which I hope the Leader of the House will agree.

First, I hope that the families of those shot will find a sense of relief and closure after the many years of pain that they have suffered; if the report achieves that, it will have done a great deal. Secondly, I hope that everyone will acknowledge the enormous progress that has been made in Northern Ireland since 1972. It is a quite different place from what it was on that tragic day when those people were shot. Thirdly, I hope—and I trust that the noble Lord will agree—that the result of this will be that the peace process will be strengthened. That will be of benefit to all the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of Ireland.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. As a former Minister, he is right about what he said about the inquiry and right that we should not rush to early conclusions. This is an enormous report to read. Having said that, the document on the conclusions is unequivocal and I know that he will take the trouble to read it, as we all need time to read it and to think about its implications. But it must be right for all of us that this is part of strengthening the peace process. It will be up to individuals, the families, defenders of the Armed Forces and others to recognise what has happened, and we should look forwards, not backwards. As the noble Lord rightly says, the Northern Ireland of 1972 is entirely different from that of 2010, and none of us can wish to go back to that period.