Leveson Inquiry

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Justice Leveson has created a new, self-regulatory system. We expect the press to put it into effect as quickly as possible. We should all be guardians to make sure that the press sticks to the new regulatory system.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I join in with the well deserved congratulations tendered in respect of Lord Justice Leveson, but does the Minister agree that a great deal of irrelevant nonsense has been spoken on the issue of freedom of the press? The press is subject to the law of sedition, defamation, treason, contempt and dozens of other fundamental legal principles, yet remains free. In Leveson we have nothing more than a statutory framework for spelling out certain principles of human decency that should have been abided by all along.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord that there has been a lot of nonsense spoken, but I do agree that there are statutes designed specifically to deal with excesses not just of the press but of other people as well. There are also instances—for example data protection—where the press has a privileged position and is excluded from the law. This is one area we need to examine.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is because of the eminence of the four individuals who have brought forward this amendment that I pray in aid my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. Why cannot they find a better way of doing it?

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

May I make a point which has not, I believe, been touched upon up to now? There are procedural issues that are fascinating and of massive impact; there are also constitutional issues dealing with the possible merits of the amendment that are of massive impact. One point that I suggest should be considered by anybody who has the future of this House, and indeed the good of Parliament, in mind with regard to the two statutes we are concerned with—first, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 and, secondly, the matter now before the House—has been very pertinently made in the most excellent opinion of Mr James Goudie, a Queen’s Counsel. It is that those two pieces of legislation, assuming that the ERA Bill goes through in its present form, are out of sync one with the other.

I can put it very simply in this way. In so far as the 2011 Act is concerned, the number of registered electors is the very touchstone of the approach of the Boundary Commission to the situation of a particular constituency. I do not think anybody would disagree with that. In relation to this proposed legislation, however, that situation is fluid not solid. It is fluid in this sense; at the moment, it is the householder who is legally responsible for registering persons living in his property. From the time that the ERA Bill becomes law, it will, of course, be a responsibility upon the individual elector. The effect will be that in the first instance there will be a fall in the number of registered electors in each constituency—I do not think that anybody can dispute this—because of the change in responsibility between the individual and the householder. Any calculation made by the Boundary Commissions will therefore be inaccurate. That is why the two pieces of legislation are out of sync one with the other. It was contemplated at one time that both should be looked upon as one whole. In a speech on 5 July 2010, the Prime Minister said that the effects of the proposals would be considered together. That is what I urge upon the Government in this context.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I mean no disrespect at all to the noble Lord, and no doubt what he has said will be debated when we get to the Bill, but I wonder if the time might have come for us to proceed with the business of the day.

House of Lords: Reform

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 8th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is a Question on tomorrow’s Order Paper that will deal with that.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Does the Minister accept that it will be the verdict of history that the proposed reform failed because it was fundamentally and fatally flawed? It created a situation whereby mutual strangulation would have been the order of the day between the two Houses. Will he give an undertaking to the House that any future consideration, which of course must encompass the primacy of the House of Commons, should be on the basis of a written constitution?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it will certainly be for historians to take a view on what happened, not only during the past two and a half years but over the past 15 years over which the debate has raged. However, as I said, more than two-thirds of the House of Commons voted in favour of an elected second Chamber. I do not think that the Bill was fatally flawed, but I do think that there will be no further progress until the House of Commons understands the full implications of an elected House being more independent, stronger and able to hold it and the Government to account.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, all I can say is, you could have fooled me. I have seen the noble Lord robustly defend or indeed attack a piece of legislation in this House. But I meet with the Deputy Prime Minister very regularly and I shall draw the noble Lord’s remarks to his attention.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords—

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

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 30th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is quite deliberately misunderstanding the position and misunderstanding what the Prime Minister has said. An allegation was made at the Leveson inquiry. It is entirely right and proper that the Secretary of State should be able to go and give evidence on the same terms and by the same method as those who have accused him of wrongdoing.

Incidentally, the decision on whether to refer the case to Sir Alex Allan is a decision for the Prime Minister. He can make that decision whenever he wants. He has suggested that he will make that decision—or take action, if he believes there was any wrongdoing—following the evidence being made public in the Leveson inquiry. The Leveson inquiry is a proper inquiry where, as I pointed out, evidence will be taken under oath and there will be cross-examination of the witnesses by barristers; in other words, the evidence that has been given already will be properly tested. That is entirely appropriate and there is no confusion at all between the two issues.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that he will await the evidence given by Mr Secretary Hunt to the Leveson inquiry. That may or may not be a rational stance to take. I take very much on board what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says. It is outside the remit of the Leveson inquiry to adjudicate upon that matter. Putting that aside, perhaps I may ask this pertinent question of the Leader of the House. When the time comes for the Prime Minister to decide whether or not to refer this matter to Sir Alex Allan as a matter of ministerial discipline, will the Prime Minister be acting in a political capacity or a quasi-judicial capacity? If I may be allowed the luxury of a supplementary question, will the Prime Minister be regarding himself as acting in a judicial or a political capacity?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, in that event, the Prime Minister will be acting as Prime Minister. He will decide whether to take action directly himself—or not to, because he believes there is no evidence—or to refer the matter to Sir Alex Allan.

European Council

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not at all agree with the noble Lord. This is not about the newspapers. I think that the British people generally accept and support what the Prime Minister did because they understand that he was standing up for vital British interests.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, the Leader of the House has time and again stated the clear intention of Her Majesty’s Government to assist the eurozone. Does he accept the stark reality of the situation; namely, that 17 countries with different economies and utterly disparate economic circumstances formed a eurozone but, when bad weather came along, disintegration became a very real possibility? In practice, the only two real possibilities are either that there should be a draconian situation of considerable discipline imposed on the eurozone or that there should be a United States of Europe or a Republic of Europe.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is a huge question and one that requires a much longer debate on another occasion. However, I agree with the noble Lord that there is a mess. There needs to be discipline; whether that is in a United States of Europe is another question altogether.

European Council

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 24th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, says that he is suspicious—he did not quite use the words “new-fangled parliamentary processes”, but he might have done—of the role of e-petitions and of the Back-Bench committee of the other place that decided on what should be debated. I do not think that there is any real tension between that and the three party leaders taking a view. It may be that the Back-Bench committee thought that something was important to debate and the three party leaders took a different view. It is certainly a less tidy process, but it may be that people feel that by joining in these petitions they have debates brought to the Floor of the House. Those who signed up to this e-petition will no doubt be very pleased with its results—at least I hope they will be.

It is very tempting to get into long debates with the noble Lord about the role of a directly elected second House. I have no view as to whether a directly elected senate would wish to vote on whether we went to war. What the noble Lord did not ask, but what he meant, was about what would happen if those two bodies disagreed in some fundamental way. Many of these questions would be ironed out once an elected senate were in place and in a position to negotiate these matters with the House of Commons.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Can the Leader of the House say whether Colonel Gaddafi’s second son and nominated heir is still alive and, if so, whether every effort will be made to capture him alive and to make him stand trial? Such a trial might cast a flood of light upon both the Lockerbie bombing and the murder of WPC Fletcher.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not know whether he is still alive but, on the basis that he is, our role would be to stick to UN Security Council Resolution 1973 and to protect civilians in Libya. We would certainly expect the Libyan regime—the NTC—to work within the rule of law; and if he were arrested he should be brought to trial so that we could find the answers to these questions.

Hereditary Peers

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Thursday 20th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we will continue what successive Governments have done in the many debates on my noble friend’s Bill. There is one very good reason for being consistent, because there is before Parliament a draft Bill that is being examined by a Joint Committee of this House.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that while undoubtedly Parliament has the authority to legislate in respect of succession to the throne, according to the learned editor of the fourth edition of volume 8 of Halsbury's Laws of England—which I checked an hour ago—at paragraph 35 and the footnotes thereto, two other powers are germane to the issue? One is the power of Parliament to elect a monarch—a power that has never been withdrawn. Secondly, of course, there are the common law principles of hereditary succession. When the Prime Minister wrote, under the Statute of Westminster 1931, to Commonwealth countries, consulting them on changes in relation to succession to the throne, did he point out this fascinating constitutional conundrum?

[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.

Libya

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we have every confidence in the Gibson inquiry. The scope of the inquiry has been carefully drawn up to keep it manageable and to ensure that it can meet the Prime Minister’s requirement for it to report within a year. The inquiry will look at the policies of the UK intelligence agencies on working with other countries holding detainees, including allegations relating to torture, improper treatment and rendition. I do not think that the Gibson inquiry itself has asked for extra powers, and we feel happy and are confident that it will be able to achieve its task.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House will accept that, on the face of it, it would appear that the main objectives of Resolutions 1970 and 1973 are very near to being achieved in the sense that organised resistance on behalf of Colonel Gaddafi is now limited to a very few specific areas. Nevertheless, as the Leader of the House put it, it may well be technically correct to say that those resolutions will still have a relevance unless and until Gaddafi is killed, is captured or flees the country. That may take a very long time. In order, therefore, that there should be no dubiety as to the status of international organisations in this context, will he give an assurance that Her Majesty’s Government, sooner rather than later, will seek and support a resolution of the Security Council to enable the sinews of life to be provided immediately for the people of Libya and, indeed, so that the physical reconstruction and matters of governance can be put in place as soon as possible?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I think I can put the noble Lord’s mind at rest by saying that the British Government are already discussing within the United Nations resolutions that will do exactly what the noble Lord has suggested. He is also right about UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973. Last week at the Paris conference, we collectively reiterated our commitment to continue to protect civilians in Libya in accordance with those Security Council resolutions, which I think is entirely appropriate.

Parliament Act 1911: Centenary

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

No, my Lords, I could not possibly agree with that. I am surprised by what the noble Lord says, with all his knowledge about Lloyd George. You have only to read the preamble to the 1911 Act to understand that those who passed it clearly wished and hoped fervently for an elected House in due course.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

On the issue of a preamble—I am sure that its words are constantly in the forefront of the noble Lord’s mind—is it not the case that it is a massive misconception to believe there was any reference in it to an elected House? What was anticipated was a more popular House—a much broader concept than an elected House. Is it not the case that 47 years later, with the Life Peerages Act 1958, that was greatly achieved? It created a balance of gender, geography, ethnicity and background which is so necessary for a reviewing Chamber.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the passing of the 1958 Act was a significant moment and a significant improvement in the selection of Members of this House. I have no idea whether it was influenced in any way by what happened in 1911. All I know is that at the previous general election all three main parties stood on a manifesto in favour of an elected House.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have dealt with the question about accountability and 15 years. If the White Paper had proposed a first-past-the-post system, my noble friend could quite legitimately say that two Houses elected on a similar mandate could well clash far more than those elected on different mandates. It is up to my noble friend but I am sure that he does not think that PR is a more legitimate system than first past the post.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, may I—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is a clever argument, but it will not wash. There is no intention at all to change the primacy of another place or of the Government being able to govern by commanding a majority in another place. In fact, PR would preserve the system that we have here, whereby the Government do not have a majority.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

May I warmly congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House, on the consummate skill with which he side-stepped the question of the possible invocation of the Parliament Act, were this House to afford a total challenge to the other place? Does he appreciate that, in the fox hunting case of some years ago, learned Lords expressed the gravest doubts whether a fundamental constitutional change could possibly be brought about by such a machinery? In the circumstances, may I suggest to him that that is a matter to be decided now, not when the cameral battle begins? Will he say whether the Government have taken legal advice on this matter, and if so, what that legal advice was?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I cannot say whether or not the Government have taken legal advice on this specifically, but my reading of that judgment and my understanding of the constitutional position is that the Parliament Act would apply to a Bill brought similarly along the lines of the draft Bill published today.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I do not wish any evil whatever upon this House, for which I have immense respect. The situation, surely, is that there are these categories of provision—first, as regards any provision dealing directly with the police commissioner, it would be utterly impossible and absurd to debate it; secondly, as regards any reference to a police commissioner, again, it would be impossible to debate it; thirdly, as regards any implied relevance of a police commissioner, again, it would be wrong to debate it. It seems that no real, genuine and substantial debate can properly occur in relation to Part 1. I do not say that with any sense of pleasure whatever.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, as a veteran of many amendments and many losses, I am slightly baffled by this debate. The Government have presented a Bill to this House and it is the property of this House. The House has decided, in its wisdom, to vote on an amendment that has removed an important aspect of the Bill. Noble Lords have spoken and have agonised over the implications of that decision. The time to think about the implications of that decision is before you vote, not after.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Baroness is generous in giving me powers, which I do not have, of knowing what it is that she is talking about. I dare say that what the noble Baroness is supposed to be talking about is the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. If my noble friend Lady Hamwee wishes to proceed with her amendment, she may and she can explain what noble Lords are supposed to be discussing. If she does not wish to carry on with her amendment and subsequent noble Lords do not wish to carry on with their amendments, the rules of the House are utterly clear: you say, “Not moved” when your name is called. We would then carry on to the stage that the noble Lords, Lord Soley, Lord Harris and others, wish to get to. This really is not complicated.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords—

Libya

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I welcome what the noble Lord has said about us operating within the context of international law and with the full support of a UN Security Council resolution. The noble Lord is also entirely correct in talking about long-term stability being in the hands of the Libyan people. If the western powers—perhaps I can put it as loosely as that—were seen to be imposing some kind of solution on Libya, it would not work. I totally agree with what the noble Lord said: the future of Libya must lie in the hands of its people and they must decide how best to run their affairs. That is part of what all this is about: by protecting civilians, we give the people the ability to have a choice to aspire to change, as has happened more peacefully in other parts of the Middle East.

The noble Lord also asked about humanitarian aid for those who find themselves stateless. I suspect that that could easily become a growing problem but DfID has played a key role and has already provided tens of thousands of blankets, more than 1,400 family tents and charter planes which have returned more than 6,000 people to their countries. The number of arrivals in transit camps is now falling; as of 20 March, some 5,874 people remain at the transit camp and DfID, with many other partners, is continuing to work to reduce the number.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if Gaddafi were to disappear from the scene tomorrow, he would leave behind him a non-functional community, and no continued imposition of a no-fly zone would of itself give any real protection at all to that community? In the circumstances, does he agree that the temptation may be very great for land forces to be used to bring about that very result? Will he endorse something that I think he has already touched on, in so far as Her Majesty's Government’s interpretation of the relevant resolution is concerned—after all it is a political and not a judicial decision—that he would abjure completely the possibility of land troops being used?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, however desirable it would be for Colonel Gaddafi to disappear tomorrow, I can confirm that this country will not be tempted to use land forces to bring that about.

Japan and the Middle East

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 14th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

As the Statement pointed out, the types of nuclear installation affected in Japan are not ones that we have in Britain, nor are any of them planned. However, it was entirely right to invite the nuclear inspector to give us a report to see what lessons can be learnt. I told the noble Baroness that I did not know what form that report would take. I cannot imagine the circumstances under which it would not be published, but I cannot confirm that at this stage. Apart from anything else, if lessons are to be learnt, the more widely those views are propagated the better. Concerning discussions with the United Nations, those are obviously ongoing within NATO and President Obama has given his full support to NATO looking at the planning of such an operation.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, is it not the case that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there are members of the Arab League that would have the capability to involve themselves in policing a no-fly zone, but I sense that we are a long way from that at this stage. There is still a diplomatic process to be completed of resolutions in the United Nations, but there is certainly no bar to making the co-operation across nations and alliances as wide and as deep as possible.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, is not the technical legal situation fairly straightforward and simple? Under Article 39 of the United Nations charter, where there has been a threat to peace or an act of aggression the Security Council is entitled to take that into account; it appears to have made a ruling on that basis. That triggers Article 42 of the charter, which allows—it is permissive, not mandatory—the Security Council to use any measure, including the use of force in the air, on land and at sea. However, prudence and practicality might well suggest that, for a no-fly zone to succeed, it would be necessary for there to be an elimination of the 20 or more surface-to-air missile sites that lace the coastal belt in Libya. Very great caution should be exercised before coming to such a decision.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I agree that there should be caution. I am less with the noble Lord that these legal matters are clear and simple; so far as I can see they are immensely complicated. That is why we want the widest international support from Europe, the Arab League and beyond, and it is why we are working in the United Nations to draft a resolution with France. Things need to be taken step by step—we are not going to overreach ourselves—and we are working with our partners at the United Nations, in NATO and in the US to look at all the options. It is clear that a no-fly zone needs international support, a clear trigger and a legal basis; no country will go for it alone. The question of the surface-to-air missiles that the noble Lord raises, and of Libya’s whole defence resources, will no doubt be taken into account.

Public Disorder: Policing

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 13th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, as I said in the Statement, 2,800 officers were in and around central London on Thursday. I do not have the figures on how many of those originated from forces outside London but if I can find out I shall let the noble Baroness know. As far as ID numbers are concerned, she is entirely correct in her understanding that these should be uncovered so that individual police officers can be identified by members of the general public or anyone else. They should not be covered up, and there are standing instructions to make sure that those numbers are not hidden from sight.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I join those who have expressed horror at the ease with which a relatively small number of aggressive anarchists were able to hijack what otherwise was a properly constituted and utterly justified demonstration. Perhaps I may invite the Minister to bear in mind the wise and statesmanlike words of the late Lord Callaghan. As the House will remember, at the time of the Grosvenor Square demonstrations in the late 1960s, he said that whenever you are faced with a situation like this, it is best, on the whole, irrespective of cost, to have a surfeit of officers in place, because the more force you have, the less violence you have to use.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, Lord Callaghan had wise things to say from time to time, and I am sure that that was one of them. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to a relatively small number. That was our assessment on some of the earlier demonstrations, but we have increasingly taken the view that that is not so much the case—that this was a much larger number of individuals who were looking for trouble, and looking to make trouble and to use violence as a form of making their views heard.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, there is a fourth group which supports a reform of the electoral system but not this reform. But this amendment is about the date, and all those who will support the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, if he presses it to a vote, have understood that by accepting this amendment, in practice the referendum cannot take place on 5 May. Amendment 5 does not specify an alternative appropriate day. Setting the date in the Bill, as we have done, gives certainty to those involved in the planning and campaigning. I could not help thinking during the course of the debate that if the Government had published a Bill with no date, noble Lords opposite would be the first to get up and say, “How outrageous this is. How can anybody campaign? This is the Government making it up as they go along”.

We decided on 5 May because it is the best date. It is when 84 per cent of the population will already be going to the polls. Or I should say that 84 per cent of the population will have the opportunity of going to the polls—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is right to admonish me on that. I made the argument last week and I make it again: it will save us a great deal of money—something like £30 million—if we go ahead on the day that we have decided.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that people will be confused. There is a lot of outrage in the House today about this sense of confusion. As my noble friend Lord Tyler said, people have no difficulty in voting in local elections and general elections on the same day. In this House, we are used to making lots of decisions every day, but the poor people outside are not so blessed with our brains and will find it much more difficult. I think not. People are well capable of deciding who should represent them in terms of local government, the Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament. They are able to decide on a simple yes or no whether they wish to have AV. I have no truck with these arguments about confusion.

The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made a point that was echoed by one or two other noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, about whether it was negligence or discourtesy that we had not consulted the other parliaments and assemblies in the United Kingdom. The Government wanted to make an announcement on a national basis on a given day to Parliament. Even if it was a lack of respect, should we change the date just because of that lack of respect, if there is no other reason not to continue?

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Granted that the Government had a total conviction that it should be 5 May and nothing else, would it however not have been courteous, chivalrous and statesmanlike to have consulted the Parliament of Scotland and the Assembly of Wales?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am sure that it would have been all of those things, but none is a reason not to have the referendum on 5 May. That is the point.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked whether, if we carried on like this, there was any prospect of getting this legislation through not just by the end of January but by the end of January 2020. I have my doubts as well. Of course, that gives the lie to the accusation that we are not debating these issues thoroughly. We could not debate these issues more thoroughly than we have done over the past day and a half in Committee.

Before us is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who offered us the date “before 31 October”. In the same group we are offered 30 June, 15 September, 6 October and 13 October, and the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, offered us 3 May 2012. It is a smorgasbord of opportunity. I am grateful to noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who have been constructive and helpful by saying that we should save ourselves with this lifeboat of an alternative. However, I am entirely satisfied that, with the evidence from the Electoral Commission and the debates within the Government, we are perfectly capable of holding this referendum on 5 May.

I have one other concern. The real unspoken reason why so many noble Lords opposite are against—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

I understand the views in Scotland and in Wales, and possibly in Northern Ireland as well. However, we have asked the Electoral Commission to give us its considered view. It has done so, and we back it.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Following that question from the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, perhaps I can ask who decided that there should be no consultation with the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I accept that there was no obligation whatever on the Government to change their mind on the matter of 5 May but, nevertheless, the decision not to consult was deeply insulting not just to the Parliament and the Assembly concerned but to the nations concerned.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I accept the noble Lord’s point; he has made it before. Perhaps if we were doing it differently, it would be done in a different way. For reasons of confidentiality and of making a statement, and rather than allowing the rumour mill to flow, it was right to make the decision we did.

Parliament Act 1911: Centenary

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, this Government will be different, which is why so much of our legislative programme is about devolving power to people. The localism Bill, which will be published shortly, and the Bill on elected police commissioners are all about taking power away from the Executive and handing it back to people.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that as a matter of legal interpretation, the words “popular basis” apply not only to a directly elected House but to a House that is appointed on a broad popular basis?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is a good try. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, and I am certain that it was not in the mind of the parliamentarians who passed the 1911 Act.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My question is very much along the same lines. It goes to the root of the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Is she right when she says that the mere fact of a Bill involving public expenditure makes it possible for it to be certified as a money Bill? If that is so, then it is extremely serious and of massive constitutional relevance.

Is it then the case—I do not have the wording of the 1911 Act before me—that since 1911 it has been a matter of restraint not to certify possibly thousands of Bills that might have been money Bills but for good reason have not been so regarded? Am I right in thinking that although the 1911 Act very considerably curtails the effect of any amendment made by this House, there is not one word in it that suggests that we should not discuss a money Bill?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is precisely why the Government have allocated a whole day for discussion and debate on this Bill. There will be a very full Second Reading day on it, especially given this debate. It is right that this House’s voice should be heard, but it cannot be heard more than the Parliament Act 1911 allows. This is so well precedented over the past 99 years that even I, who like history and historical anecdotage in the House of Lords, find this whole debate extraordinary.

The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord asked about the Speaker’s role in all this. Parliament Acts are a long-standing part of the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom. Under the Parliament Act 1911, Mr Speaker is under a statutory duty to certify a Bill a money Bill if, in his opinion, it contains provisions dealing with national taxation, public money, loans or their management. The important words there are “a statutory duty”. It is not a choice; Mr Speaker has no discretion in the matter. That goes to answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who gave the impression that somehow there was discretion in this matter, and that I could say to the Speaker, “On balance, old boy, could you certify rather fewer money Bills?”. That is not the case. It is done on advice given by Mr Speaker’s Clerks on the basis of a statutory provision. The decision to certify this Bill a money Bill is taken entirely by Mr Speaker in another place. We accept the consequences of that because of the 1911 Act and all the precedents that have been set over the past 100 years. In my opening speech, I talked about the 60-odd money Bills that have arisen in the past 13 years. The outrage on the part of noble Lords opposite is extraordinary given that, seven months ago, they were sitting on this side of the House but never once did they scratch their heads and say, “These money Bills are a bit odd. We really should repeal the 1911 Act”.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 5th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, we have another 15 minutes. I am sure everybody will get in. Shall we hear from the Cross Benches first and then somebody from the Labour Party?

Barnett Formula

Debate between Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Strathclyde

Monday 7th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is plenty of time for both noble Lords to speak. Let us hear from the noble Lord from the Cross Benches.

[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?