Afghanistan
Lord Goldsmith Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there are many in Afghanistan whose safety must now be protected, including those who have worked to support the rule of law, such as Mr Rohullah Qarizada, president of the Afghanistan Independent Bar Association, who has been engaged in hundreds of cases fighting for human rights and now fears for his life and the lives of his family.
I particularly join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in drawing attention to the situation of 250 Afghan women judges who are uniquely at risk, not just because they are women but because they are judges who have served on anti-terrorism, anti-corruption, drug and criminal courts and have sentenced Taliban members. Those sentenced might be angry at any judge but the fact that a woman judge would exercise that authority enrages them. The judges are therefore getting phone calls with threats and their contact details are readily available through bribes. They are burning their law books to avoid being identified. They are at grave risk of revenge by murder and assassination. The situation is urgent. As the Taliban have advanced, they have been opening prisons and releasing prisoners, including from Bagram, where some of the worst terrorists were incarcerated.
These brave women need protection. Many were trained with assistance from the West, including this country. As the president of the International Association of Women Judges said in a statement, these women should be extended the same special measures applying to interpreters, journalists and other personnel who provided essential services.
Our Government should support this case. In listing the vulnerable groups who deserve protection and will get it, the Lord Privy Seal did not include women judges in Afghanistan. I ask the Minister to confirm when he replies that they will be included in those groups. The shame that we already have at deserting Afghanistan will be doubled if we do not help women whom we have encouraged to serve their country by promoting the rule of law and who now find themselves in deadly peril.
Business of the House
Lord Goldsmith Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I strongly endorse what the noble Lord has said. It seems to me that we have to be realistic. I speak as a Lord spiritual with an obligation to engage in what was called “high politics” earlier, as a Member of this House, noting that the Lords spiritual cannot be whipped and that we are not a party. It seems to me that we have to be realistic and say that this prorogation has been disingenuously propagated as being just a little extension to recess, when we know that it is of a completely different order. We have prorogation on one side and these procedural objections about closure and guillotine over here. The reality is that we are going to carry on with the sort of spectacle we have had thus far unless the Front Benches come to some agreement and conclusion. It would be grown-up to do that. I do not suspect, from what I am hearing, that anyone in this Chamber wants to spend day and night going through these Motions to achieve very little other than irritation, so I add my endorsement to what the noble Lord has said and encourage the Front Benches to do as he requested.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, from this Front Bench I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for what he said, which was in good tone and wise. The important thing is that he called on both Front Benches. Noble Lords will recall my noble friend Lady Smith, the Leader of the Opposition, saying at the beginning of the debate that if we could be clear that the Bill could get through in time—that means before prorogation, because otherwise we know what would happen—then she did not see her Motion as necessary. I am not in a position to make promises on her behalf and certainly not in a position to say anything about general elections—that is way above my pay grade—but on the point about whether the Front Benches can agree a business Motion, as it were, to get the Bill through in time, that is something that I understood my noble friend to say she would welcome. At that time, the Leader of the House was saying something different. I am not going to put her on the spot, but if we knew that both Front Benches were saying that, that would be a very different matter and it would be welcomed by the House. I understand the House and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to be accepting the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am not going to say anything more, since I cannot, but I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble and learned Lord is being very constructive, but he has left out the key point. There needs to be a commitment from the Opposition that they will allow the Prime Minister to take his case to the country. I find it quite extraordinary that the Opposition do not want to fight a general election.
Lord Goldsmith
I have made it very clear that this is way above my pay grade, but I understand that what has been said is not that we are against a general election but that we are against a general election before the Bill has passed and we have clarified the position in relation to the possibility of crashing out without a deal. I am not going to say anything more, because some of this may be taken as an official statement from the Labour Party, which it is certainly not.
Lord True
I will not ask the noble and learned Lord to go further, but the fundamental point is that we cannot do the whole thing in this House. I endorse fully what has been said by others. We should have an arrangement and understanding between the three parties. It has also to involve the Front Benches in the other Chamber. If that can be achieved, that would be a good way to proceed.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, I speak as a former Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy Speaker who took the Maastricht Bill in another place. I remember meeting opposition spokesmen across all parties in my room as Chairman of Ways and Means and discussing that Bill. There is nothing to prevent discussions on a Bill taking place, but the Motion before us this evening is not really necessary for a subsequent Bill, the likes of which we do not know in any detail. The noble and learned Lord opposite shakes his head—perhaps he does know, but I do not, and I am quite sure that 90% of Members here do not, either.
We have already passed an amendment that this House will in the future have the opportunity to guillotine any Bill that comes. I take some objection to the Liberal Whip insisting from a sedentary position on putting the Question when a privy counsellor gets up. He must have known, or should have known, that I took the Maastricht Bill—all 26 days of it, all three whole-night sittings and all 600 amendments. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but that was quite a long Bill—but at least there was no filibustering on it. There was a lot of discussion. There have been subsequent Bills on Europe which have been much shorter.
None of us here this evening has any idea what is in that Bill. So I put it to this House that it is up to the two Front Benches to get together, talk about the Bill that is coming and, when it comes, reach some agreement. However, to change the whole procedures of the second House for a Bill that the country as a whole is divided on is not a procedure that should be welcomed by anyone. I look at the amendment that my noble friend has moved. Are we really saying that we will get rid of all the Standing Orders on how we operate in this House? That these notices, where you have precedence of notices of orders relating to public Bills, measures, affirmative instruments, negative instruments and reports from Select Committees of the House, can be varied on any day if the convenience of the House requires it—are we going to throw those procedures out of the window in the future? That cannot be a sensible way forward.
I say to noble friends on all sides of the House, and to the noble Baroness in the Chair, that I sat in the other place when a great argument was taking place. Good decisions were made in the end. This evening we should forget about this Motion. It is a pariah of democracy and, quite frankly, should not have been put forward. I understand the emotion behind the Labour Party putting it forward. I sat in a marginal seat with majorities of 179 and 142, so I do understand these things. So I ask the two Front Benches to come together and say, “Right, we’ll pull this Motion on condition that there is discussion on the future Bill”.
Lord Goldsmith
To be clear, is the noble Lord proposing this on the basis that there will be an agreement to get the Bill, when it has actually been published, through in time before Prorogation? If so, that is very helpful.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I will just make my position clear on behalf of these Benches in returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am very much in sympathy with the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. All I will say is that I am willing to play my part as the leader of these Benches in trying to reach an accommodation as to how we resolve these proceedings without having to go through all the amendments one by one. However, I stress that this will happen only if those on the Government Front Bench are prepared to engage with, no doubt, the Bishops’ Benches, myself and the Opposition. It will not work without the willingness of the Government Front Bench.
Lord Goldsmith
I understand the points the noble Lord is making, but the amendment proposed is to add some words to the Motion to make a political statement that can be made without that appearing in the Motion. I wonder whether the noble Lord might agree that it does not advance the debate in this House to consider the addition of these words. We should be considering whether the House will finish consideration of this Bill, when it arrives, by the end of Friday. That is the real point before us. I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree that that is what we should be considering.
Baroness Noakes
A great start, but not necessarily the finish, to getting the right balance in your Lordships’ House. I believe that this House and the other place need to think very carefully when acting so out of line with the result of the referendum. Through that referendum, Parliament ceded control of the decision to the people—the people are the ultimate source of authority in the country—but has been trying ever since to take it back, both in this place and the other place. We run the risk of doing serious harm to the institutions of Parliament.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, the issue before the House is whether or not to agree the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I suggest first that the noble Lord withdraws it, but I suspect that that is not going to happen, and, secondly, that the House does not accept the amendment. The reasons are those that have been given already. It does not add to the point about the programme Motion, which says that the Bill, if it reaches us, should be dealt with in accordance with a procedure which would give two clear days for it to be dealt with. I respectfully suggest, as was the point of my intervention on the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that it is not helped by adding this statement, whether ironic or political. The real question ultimately is whether or not the programme Motion should be agreed. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. If not, we will oppose it.
Lord Goldsmith
The motivation is very clear and has been clearly expressed. What we are trying to avoid is a situation in which the United Kingdom crashes out of the European Union without a deal. That is what the Bill, which has been published, does. It requires that there should be either a vote of the House of Commons approving exit without a deal or an agreement that is approved. That is what it does, and the British people can see that. No doubt the noble Lord and others might say that there is a different reason for it. They are fully at liberty to make that point however they want, but it does not need to be stated in legislation.
Lord Framlingham
The noble and learned Lord used the words “crashes out”, which is the slogan of remainers, day after day, everywhere you look. Does he accept that “crashing out” is an opinion?
Lord Goldsmith
I am not going to engage in this debate; we have had it so many times. We have seen it so many times in predictions, and most recently in the Yellowhammer report. Whether or not the noble Lord likes my language, I am making the point that this amendment should not be accepted. That is what I invite the House to do.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
The noble and learned Lord talks about the feelings of the people. Something I want to endorse from my noble friend’s intervention is that, since 1910 or thereabouts, your Lordships’ House and the people have walked hand in hand. “The Peers and the people” has been an expression that had real meaning. I fear that that is not the case any longer and my impression, as an inhabitant of the north-west of England, is that people are beginning to question the point of your Lordships’ House if it ceases to be on their side. This particular Motion would put paid for ever to the respect that this House has among the people.
Lord Marlesford
I very much echo what my noble friend says. It is a disgrace that the closure Motion is constantly moved, and on one occasion—after the brilliant speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—before anybody else had any chance of commenting. The Liberal Benches did it; they have not apologised and they should. Then, to make it all worse, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, took it upon himself to tell me what I should and should not say in my speech.
Lord Goldsmith
I may have given the noble Lord advice, but I did not expect him to take it.
Baroness Noakes
Noble Lords should have got the understanding that we are not trying to debate the Bill but the Motion, and therefore the mechanism of achieving the Bill. We do not believe that it is right and proper to use the guillotine Motion. We believe that the House should look at that extremely carefully before ever contemplating it. To come back to my amendment—I am sure noble Lords opposite would like me to return to my amendment, although I am happy to take any other interventions—
Lord True
I made my comments on Sir John Major’s action in a speech in this House a month or two ago and I do not need to repeat them. I am trying to avoid referring to these proceedings, perhaps unwisely. If the noble Lord, Lord Warner, wishes to google “Major” in my speeches, he will find my opinion of some of the actions we have seen lately.
I do not want to prolong this speech. I am just interested to know how the Opposition, which is leading and pressing on this, sees this range of legal actions fitting in to what it plans and proposes. They are purporting to run the business of our House. Have they given any consideration to what may be happening in the law courts? As I have said, that is where the power is. We do not have the power. In a spirit of inquiry, perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, will tell us whether he has given any consideration to any litigation. He has certainly referred to the Scottish matter in putting forward this draconian guillotine.
Lord Goldsmith
As the noble Lord invites me to speak, I have a question for him. I notice that there are three amendments—one relating to the English courts, one relating to the Scottish courts and one relating to the Northern Irish court—all in his name. All are otherwise identical with the same principle—do we consider the Bill before that litigation has concluded? Does he intend that those should all be dealt with separately, one after the other, taking the time that that undoubtedly will? If that is what he intends, does he not agree that is a clear case of wasting the House’s time and delaying getting on to the legislative business?
Lord True
That is an extraordinary intervention from the noble and learned Lord. I try to avoid lawyers as much as possible. As human beings, I regard them as friends, but as professionals I try to avoid them. I thought that the English court system, the Scottish court system and the system in Northern Ireland were separate systems and they went on separate tracks. There is a separate political establishment in Scotland as well. The litigation in Scotland has been concluded whereas in England, as I understand it, it has not been started. I am amazed that a lawyer of the experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, can come to this House and suggest that three jurisdictions and three separate tracks should be wrapped into one. It is perfectly legitimate to inquire of him and the Opposition whether he has any regard for the other jurisdictions. Perhaps he is not interested in the results in Scotland because the case has not come out in the way that he wanted. Perhaps he does not want my noble friend Lady Noakes to talk about it. I do not accept his criticisms.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord was in his place earlier when we were trying to come to a point when we did not need to do this. The only reason we are here is because an exceptional, unprecedented, draconian, repugnant guillotine Motion was put down. Those opposite have the power. The only power that the minority have in Parliament is the power to resist; we still have that freedom. The right of Members to put down amendments is precious in this House and should not be criticised. The impatience of power which one hears from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is unattractive, however charmingly he puts it, as he always does.
For my part, I am totally unrepentant, but I cannot speak for others. I hope there will be an agreement and do not believe that this is the way to do business in the House. In any conflict, everyone says, “They started it”, but in this case, they did start it. Any extreme action provokes a counterreaction, and the counterreaction here is to defend the liberties of this House. The moment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, stands up to withdraw the guillotine Motion, I will scrub every amendment in my name. I cannot speak for others, although I see my noble friend Lord Forsyth nodding, because it is entirely down to them. Until then, we will advocate and speak for those freedoms. Perhaps we could be enlightened on how the Opposition, who are leading this, view the interrelation between the court cases and what they are doing on this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde
My noble friend has moved his amendment. It would be normal, when discussing an amendment to a major Motion, for somebody from one of the Front Benches to reply to him. In this case, the Motion was moved by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition, so one would assume that someone from the Front Bench would wish to intervene. They do not have to but it is entirely normal practice. It adds to the flavour that something ugly is happening in this House when the Opposition refuse to interact in the debate. I put this to them: suppose that, on another occasion, there is a Bill before the House sponsored by the Government and noble Lords opposite make impassioned speeches and my noble friends on the Front Bench simply sit there, happily. Would that be okay? I assume that it would. For those reading this in Hansard, Members of the Opposition are nodding their assent.
Lord Goldsmith
I am surprised. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who I admire enormously, heard the intervention I made on the noble Lord, Lord True, which made it very clear what the position is on this amendment. It is a filibustering amendment, which is shown by the fact that the same amendment is proposed to be made three times.
Lord Henley (Con)
The noble and learned Lord says that the same amendment has been put down three times. As my noble friend pointed out, the amendments deal with three completely separate jurisdictions. If the noble and learned Lord opposite is not prepared to answer the various questions put by my noble friend, obviously he will have to come back to this again and again, as he has the opportunity to do when we come to the later amendments. It might actually speed up the process if the noble and learned Lord took the trouble to answer some of the points that my noble friend has made. In that case, when my noble friend gets to those later amendments, whenever that may be, he might not feel it necessary to intervene on them. It would assist the House if the noble and learned Lord gave us the views of the Opposition Front Bench on this amendment.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, Amendment 2E in the name of my noble friend Lord True was going to be moved by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. However, as our business has not progressed as quickly as we expected, he is on his way to catch the sleeper train to Scotland. I can tell that the House is disappointed that he is not taking part in dealing with this amendment.
I am pursuing what my noble friend Lord True started with the previous amendment: trying to find out how those who have tabled this Motion see the interaction between it and the proceedings taking place in the various courts mentioned. My noble friend Lord True dealt with the English court action. Amendment 2E deals with the proceedings relating to Prorogation in the Scottish courts.
The temporary interdict, as I think it is called in Scotland—those of us who learned our law elsewhere call it an injunction—was not granted. We had Lord Doherty’s judgment today. He said:
“This is political territory and decision making which cannot be measured against legal standards”.
He also said that accountability should rest with,
“parliament, and ultimately the electorate”.
From the point of view of those initial proceedings—this was in response to those taken by a number of MPs and noble Lords—that seems to be settled. However, as I understand it, there is a possibility of that decision being appealed.
Putting it more directly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith—who I believe is answering on the Front Bench at the moment—since the original action has now been settled against those seeking an interdict, if the decision is appealed and it is determined that Prorogation should not take place, does that affect how the Motion is put together? Given that many noble Lords said earlier today that they believed they were forced into this action because of the nature of Prorogation, it seems to me that the need for this Motion falls away if Prorogation falls away.
These amendments have been drafted to establish the interconnection between the Motion and whether Prorogation is allowed to remain in place or is defeated by the various legal actions. I am trying to find out Her Majesty’s Opposition’s position on this from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, it is hard to resist an invitation put by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but the position is quite straightforward: legislation is one thing, litigation is another. At the moment, Prorogation is going to take place; no court has said that it will not. In those circumstances we are faced with the ultimate guillotine, if your Lordships like, of seeing the business in this House stopped. That is why we want to agree the Motion moved by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon: to make sure this House has a full opportunity to deal with the Bill, which has now arrived from the other place. It arrived during the debate and we will, we hope, be taking it. As it stands at the moment, as I said, Prorogation will take place.
Lord Strathclyde
The noble and learned Lord helpfully mentioned the Bill that has just arrived from the House of Commons. Can he or a member of the Front Bench tell us when it will be published in the form in which it was passed by the House of Commons, so that we will be able to look at it, table amendments to it and see whether indeed any amendments were made to it in the House of Commons?
While I am on my feet, I will share an interesting thing that has happened. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, who adorns the Back Benches on the other side, used to be my Member of Parliament. I remark that this is the first time I can ever remember that the noble Lord has not spoken on a matter to do with Scotland. I hope this is the shape of things to come.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, when my noble friend Lady Smith introduced the Business Motion this morning, she explained that the purpose behind it was to ensure that the House would have adequate time to consider the Bill, which has now arrived from the other place. To do that, certain things needed to be done, including making sure that other business could not be slotted in to displace your Lordships’ consideration of the Bill.
Time, as we all know, is short. The reason it is short is that we have Prorogation hanging over us. We believe that we cannot afford to find a situation in which this House cannot complete its consideration of the Bill, which has come today from the other place. To do that, the Bill needs to take priority over other business. We need to make sure that we can get through the different stages. Amendments are put down and there needs to be time. To ensure that that can happen, one thing that has to be done is making, for the purposes of this Bill and in these circumstances, these changes to the Standing Orders. That is the purpose behind the Motion. I hope that that helps the noble Lord and the House.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, I regret to say that I feel the noble and learned Lord has been negligent, and not for the first time today. Surely, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft has said, it is only reasonable to explain the rationale for a part of the process. Again, the noble and learned Lord has failed to do so, so the House needs to look for a proper explanation of this part of the Motion.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I had already arranged with my noble friend Lord True that I would speak to Amendment 2K. It is similar to Amendment 2J, which I moved on behalf my noble friend. It relates again to Standing Order 40. Paragraph 1 of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, dispenses with Standing Order 40(3) to 40(9). This amendment would dispense with Standing Order 40(3) and 40(5) to 40(9) but would leave in place Standing Order 40(4), which says:
“On all sitting days except Thursdays, notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures, Affirmative Instruments and reports from Select Committees of the House shall have precedence over other notices and orders save the foregoing”.
As I said when I moved the previous amendment, we should play around with Standing Orders only when it is absolutely necessary. I do not think that we had a convincing explanation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, as to why these parts of Standing Order 40 have been chosen to be dispensed with to speed up the Bill that has come from the other place.
Standing Order 40(4) says that,
“On all sitting days except Thursdays”,
these notices and orders are important. Of course, the Motion relates only to Thursday and Friday, which is not a normal sitting day. It is open to question why the preparers of this Motion have decided to eliminate Standing Order 40(4). We should override Standing Orders, which are there to help us to do business efficiently and properly on a regular basis, only when we completely understand why they are being removed. Amendment 2K is designed to ensure that Standing Order 40(4) remains intact despite the Motion proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, the answer on this amendment is the same as that on the last amendment. The Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon has been drafted to ensure that this House will have the maximum time to consider the Bill that has come from the other place if the Motion is passed and be able to complete the Bill before Prorogation. The need to avoid that problem is at the heart of all this. Those who are experienced in the procedures of the House know that there are ways in which time can be taken and things can be undermined so that the House will not have the time to consider the Bill. That is what this is all about.
I have to say to the noble Baroness that this is no different from the previous amendment. She has seen what the House thought of that. It was rejected overwhelmingly. In those circumstances I respectfully suggest that the noble Baroness have the courtesy to accept that that is what this House will do on this amendment—and indeed the subsequent amendments which are in exactly the same form—and withdraw it.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, wishes to curtail discussion on this Motion. However, I do not think that he has explained why we should dispense with Standing Order 40(4) and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
European Council
Lord Goldsmith Excerpts(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. At the request of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, I am responding.
We are pleased that an extension to the United Kingdom’s exit date has been granted, so that we do not crash out of the European Union tomorrow without a deal, which would put at risk jobs, health, the economy and our security. However, the way it has happened is no cause for pleasure, because its occurrence as a result of a rushed flight to Brussels amid reports of serious disagreements between different member states has led to a further erosion of the credibility of the United Kingdom in the world. It is also a very bad set of conditions in which to continue negotiations with the EU 27 on the political declaration, if we get that far. No doubt there will also be sharp and sustained anger and dismay in the country.
The reason for that is squarely to be placed at the door of the Prime Minister and the Government. She knew, at the latest in early December, when she postponed the first meaningful vote, that her deal was in grave difficulties and unlikely to pass. That became clearer and clearer as we went through later months. Yet still she drove forward to the sharp cliff edge of a no-deal exit in a game of chicken, hoping that either the European Union or Parliament would blink before we got there. She was warned time and again, including by the Labour Party, not to run down the clock in the hope that Parliament would be forced to agree her deal despite its strong dislike of it, instead of looking at alternative routes forward—particularly cross-party discussions, which have at least finally started.
It is now plain to see that her plan has backfired. It is not either the EU that has had to blink and reopen the deal, or Parliament that has had to blink and accept it. It is the Prime Minister who has had to blink and ask for an extension—although we welcome it— apparently then having to sit out the Council meeting itself again in a solitary room, waiting to be summoned back and told her fate, and indeed ours. She now has time, which she must use wisely and productively in the interests of all the people of this country, not solely of the Conservative Party. In progressing cross-party talks but also in looking at all other ways to find a solution—including looking at a public vote—can the Minister therefore answer these questions?
First, the European Union Council has said that though the extension is until 31 October, it will be reviewed in June. What has the Council said that it will particularly look at then, and what will the Government do to meet those requirements? What is the risk that we would face an exit earlier than the end of October? Secondly, what steps will the Government take to use the time now available? Thirdly, we had understood that the European Union expected us to say what the purpose of an extension was. Did the Prime Minister make any statements to the Council about that and, if so, what were they? Finally, what steps will be taken to keep Parliament—including this House—fully informed of the progress?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. This is the 15th opportunity we have had to discuss the Government’s withdrawal agreement since it was reached at the back end of last year. During the last four months, and during all these debates, the Government have made absolutely no progress in getting the approval of the Commons for it. I am a great fan of “Groundhog Day”, the film. I am much less a fan of “Groundhog Day”, the lived experience. Yesterday, the Council reiterated that the withdrawal agreement cannot be reopened. The Government have accepted this. How, therefore, are they to get their withdrawal agreement accepted by the Commons? If they cannot, what happens next?
Regarding the first question, the Government are holding talks with the Labour Party. The Prime Minister says that any agreement with Labour will require compromise. That will undoubtedly also involve compromise by the Prime Minister. Could the noble Baroness the Leader of the House give us any indication of any material respect at all in which the Government have signalled a willingness to make any compromise, which they accept will be needed if an agreement with Labour is to be reached? If she cannot, how does she answer the question in many people’s minds: are these talks little more than a charade, a basis on which to get the Government and the Prime Minister through the European Council, which can now be discontinued, having served their purpose?
Of course, there is one way the Government could get the withdrawal agreement through the Commons quickly—by accepting that the agreement and the option to remain should be put to a ballot of the country as a whole. The Government would then have that agreement within a day. It seems they will not do so, despite knowing—because they can read—that an increasing majority of the population now believes that the politicians have failed so dismally in their duty to get a proper outcome that the decision must now go back to them. Is it too cynical to suggest that the only reason the Government will not contemplate such a course is that they know that, if such a vote were held, they would lose it and, arguably, lose it heavily? Or, as Laura Kuenssberg has been reporting over recent hours, is the Prime Minister’s intention to put her deal to the Commons for a fourth time knowing, as she does, that it will lose a fourth time? Having lost, she then intends to pivot towards a referendum, with her deal and remaining in the EU on the ballot paper. That seems an eminently sensible course for the Prime Minister to take. Presumably something has happened to make serious political commentators believe it is now in the Prime Minister’s mind. I am sure the noble Baroness, as a member of the Cabinet, knows what is in the Prime Minister’s mind. Perhaps she could tell us that.
If it is not in the Prime Minister’s mind, what is? What will happen next and when? The Statement contains the dread phrase “at pace”. We have had this before in Statements and it has usually been the preface to a process running into the sands and nothing happening. When the Prime Minister talks about trying to get to the end point at pace, including further votes, do the Government have any sense of what it means? Are we talking about indicative votes, or whatever they will be called, in the week the Commons comes back after Easter, the following week or before the European elections? Give us a clue. The whole country would like to know the sort of timetable the Government have in mind.
The Prime Minister is clearly terrified of the prospect of the European Parliament elections. The key aim of the Government now is to avoid them. We on these Benches are not; we will fight these elections if a referendum for a people’s vote on our place in Europe has not been agreed. We will fight on a platform of common European liberal values. We will take on the populists who threaten these values and would make Britain poorer, less secure and less tolerant. We look forward to taking those arguments to the people.
Judicial Independence
Lord Goldsmith Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
The noble and learned Lord is quite right, and right to emphasise that judges have in themselves very thick skins—the noble and learned Lord will know this. It is also right, as I made clear in my original Answer, that we are very keen to see greater understanding of the role of the judiciary and how it operates. The Government will continue to support that.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, it is not just understanding what the judges do that matters but the confidence to which the Minister himself referred. Does he agree that as we look forward, if we do, to a post-Brexit world we will need to have utter confidence in our legal system to reassure business and to attract foreign investors, and that anything that is done now to damage that long-term future by applauding short-term political name-calling is to be regretted?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I think that I can only repeat what my noble and learned friend said earlier; we have the utmost faith in the judiciary and will continue to do so.
Iraq
Lord Goldsmith Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, like so many of your Lordships who have spoken already, I support this proposed action on the basis that we cannot refuse the request that has been made to this country by the legitimate Government of Iraq. It has been put eloquently, including by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, with whom I entirely agree, and it is lawful. I put the lawfulness of this proposed action very simply. Any legitimate Government have the right to deal proportionately, but if necessary with force, with armed and murderous insurrectionists on their own territory. That is what Iraq seeks to do. It is entitled to turn to the international community to ask for support. So long as that support is also proportionate and complies with the laws of international humanitarian law, there is no need to go any further into the reasons for the legitimacy. The case for why it is lawful is clear.
There are two lacunae, both of which have been mentioned in the course of the debate, on which I will spend a moment or two. One of them was mentioned by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House when she opened this debate, when she referred to the other things that we need to do to deal with the threat to the British people. I support the need to deal with preachers of hate, and support what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said about the need to look at our Prevent strategy. We will not protect people in this country simply by air strikes, even though they may be essential. We must not forget that, and I hope that this House will come back to those questions as the Government come back to them.
The second lacuna that has been mentioned is what will happen in Syria. It is inevitable that the Government at some stage—whichever Government that may be—will come back and say, “We need now to deal with ISIL in Syria because of the porous border, because it can simply retreat to its bases there”. Indeed, it is operating from its bases there. The legal basis for air strikes in Syria will be more difficult, but there may well be reasons and justifications for them which we need to study now. The first is the right of self-defence and collective self-defence, which is recognised under the United Nations charter. This House debated the extent of the right of self-defence in international law on 21 April 2004, when we had the privilege of setting out the then Government’s position, which included the statement:
“It must be right that states are able to act in self-defence in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups, even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack”.—[Official Report, 21/4/04; col. 370.]
It was because of that use of self-defence that we originally took action in Afghanistan. The second basis is the ability to take action to prevent humanitarian catastrophes. The evidence for that will need very carefully to be considered if the Government take the view that that is a justification in place.
These are not easy questions, whether they are murky or unclear, but they will need a very careful analysis. I hope too, as other noble Lords have said and as the Prime Minister has said, that we will not be paralysed by what has happened before or by fear of what will happen again and not take the right action. I say that with respect to the Government, and with respect to my own Front Bench and to those in the other place, so that they will also be prepared to take the action that is right for us and for the rest of the world.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Goldsmith Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who, with scholarship, erudition and experience has made an extraordinarily powerful case for a reduction in the number of Ministers. But there are two matters before your Lordships’ House on these two amendments. The first is whether to maintain, as the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton would do, the number of Ministers at least proportionate to the number of MPs. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, would go further.
I support the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend to the extent that that amendment at least ought to be accepted. The Government have come with great and, in many ways, worthy protestations of a desire to reform politics, in particular to reduce the power of the Executive—I look particularly at those on the Liberal Democrat part of the Government Benches. I do not understand how they can be content when that is not what will happen under this Bill. Indeed, it will be quite the opposite, as my noble and learned friend has said.
Lest there be any misunderstanding outside this Chamber as to the significance of the payroll vote, let me try to spell it out. First, if you are on the payroll vote, which means those who are paid or unpaid for these purposes, including Parliamentary Private Secretaries as well as full Ministers, you cannot vote against the Government without resigning. It is as simple as that. If a piece of legislation is put forward that a number of Ministers do not like, they cannot stay as Ministers and vote against it. That automatically means that the Government have a greater number of Members of Parliament able and willing to support what they want.
Secondly, as noble Lords have said, the Government cannot be held to account. When I was a Minister I could not ask questions of the Government through the mechanisms which exist in this House, let alone those in the other place. One can do what one can behind the scenes, but one cannot in an open way hold the Government to account.
On 17 January, I drew attention to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Clegg, that the unambiguous judgment on the part of the Government was,
“that reducing the power of the executive, seeking to boost the power of the legislature, making the legislatures more accountable to people ... collectively introduces the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater control over politicians”.
I will listen intently to what the Minister—if it be the Leader of the House—says as to how that statement can be reconciled with a position which does not accept that at the very least the number of Ministers must be reduced proportionately to the number of Back-Benchers. Otherwise, the power of the Executive will not be reduced. The power of the legislature will not be boosted. Quite the opposite will take place.
Lord Tyler
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will take his argument a step further. There is a powerful case here for looking at this issue. With his great experience as a very senior member of the previous Administration, but as a Member of this House, he will immediately acknowledge that this is also related to the issue of how many Ministers should sit in this House.
In the past, I have heard a powerful argument that, if and when this House is reformed, it may well be that there should be a proper separation of powers and that there should not be any Members of the Executive who are voting Members of this House. Will he acknowledge therefore that there is a good case for this issue to be addressed in the context of the future role of this House, which, as we know, this House and the other place will consider in a matter of weeks? Therefore, it may be premature for this issue to be addressed in this Bill when the relationship of the two Houses and, in particular, the relationship of this House to the Executive will be in front of this House in weeks.
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention and for his kind remarks, because he makes my point. The problem is that the Government have chosen to introduce in this Bill not only the referendum, which they need as a matter of urgency because of their political deal, and with which I have no difficulty, as I have said before, but also the reduction in the number of MPs.
A part of this change is in this Bill. My concern is that this Bill does not deal with the whole of it. I do not find it acceptable for the Government, with respect to the noble Lord who will answer this point, to say, “Well, don’t worry, something will be looked at later”. I am going to ask the Minister three questions now and he can think about them. What are the Government going to do about this? I have already drawn attention to the fact that on the Constitution Committee, when we asked Mr Clegg and Mr Mark Harper, the Minister, about the risk of increasing the power of the Executive, Mr Clegg said:
“There is a strong argument that says that you must look at this and adapt the number of people who are on the government payroll so that you do not get a lopsided imbalance between those on the payroll and those holding them to account”.
If there is a strong argument—and I agree with him that there is—what is going to be done to deal with it?
Secondly, when is it going to be done? Vague statements about the boundary changes not coming into effect for some time and having been able to look at this by then are all very well—but when is this going to happen? Thirdly, will the Minister tonight in his reply commit to some method by which the reduction in the number of Members, if this House or Parliament adopts the proposals in the end, does not come into effect until there has been a satisfactory reduction in the number of Ministers, either as suggested in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, or by that of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth? I would prefer to see that being dealt with in this Bill. I do not think it should be put off, which is why I support the amendment. At the very least, the Government should ask themselves what they are going to do, if the new politics are to have any credibility, in their proposals for increasing the power of the legislature, reducing the power of the Executive and giving more power to the people. So long as they do not give a clear, unconditional commitment on this question, that statement will appear just a mirage and a charade. Having got into power, they are happy, as many Governments have been in the past, simply to retain the reins of power and the patronage and ability to get their legislation through by having as many of their people as possible on the government Benches. For those reasons, I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the manifesto on which the Conservative Party fought the last election stated on page 63 said that,
“we plan to change Britain with a sweeping redistribution of power … from the government to Parliament”.
The power and size of the Executive vis-à-vis the House of Commons has grown over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, suggested that there might be some justification for that in terms of the growing demands of modern government. On the other hand, one might say that with the appropriation—if I can put it that way—of significant powers of government over this country by the European Union and the devolution of significant responsibilities for government to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is an argument that there is a need for fewer Ministers rather than more. The reality is, however, that numbers have grown and grown. One reason in recent times why the numbers of ministerial appointments and members of the payroll vote have grown yet again is because it has been found expedient in the formation of the coalition to provide more jobs for more of the boys and girls.
Mr Christopher Chope, an admirably robust and courageous Member of Parliament and someone who has never had any time for the excuses and the self-justification that big government makes for itself, said:
“This Government have a record number of Ministers—more than at any time since the 1975 legislation was passed. When I was first elected in 1983”—
that is the year in which I was also first elected to the other place—
“there were about 83 House of Commons Ministers in Margaret Thatcher’s Government. We now have 95, five more than we had at the height of the last Labour Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 103.]
He went on to observe that the number of government Whips is now at an all-time high.
The payroll has grown and grown, and as my noble and learned friend has just said, it is not paid ministerial positions alone that have grown; the number of parliamentary private secretaries has soared. I understand that in the 1950s only a very small number of extremely senior Cabinet Ministers had a PPS. Nowadays, every member of the Cabinet has at least one PPS, and some have two, while every Minister of State has a PPS. In this way, the House of Commons has been progressively debilitated. Not for nothing is the Chief Whip known as the “patronage secretary”. If this Bill is unamended, the patronage exercised by the government Chief Whip in the other place will become more significant still.
Professor Philip Cowley of the University of Nottingham has noted that, contrary to the folklore, in recent years there have been increasing numbers of rebellions as more and more Back-Bench Members of the other place have found themselves rebelling from time to time. The Executive’s response has been to create more jobs and, through this Bill, to reduce the number of Back-Benchers in proportion to the size of the House of Commons. Not only the Government do this. The Opposition and other parties have to do it as well, or at least they persuade themselves that they, too, must stock their Front Benches with increasingly numerous appointments. We have reached the point where approaching half the membership of the House of Commons is on one Front Bench or another. What proportion of independent Back-Benchers does that leave? By the time you discount the ambitious who are not truly independent and the disappointed whose votes are not as independent as they might suppose, how many Back-Benchers enjoy in every sense of the term the freedom of the Back Benches? Not very many.
The Executive, via the legitimate day-to-day operations of the Whips—who have a proper job to do, and it is entirely appropriate for them to appeal to their party members for loyalty and support in the Division Lobbies—via the growth of patronage, via the exploitation of the ambitions of an increasingly professional political class, via pressures that can be exerted on Back-Bench Members through their local parties and via the fear, possibly, of deselection, one way or another continue to increase their dominance of the House of Commons.
I shall quote again from the Conservative Party manifesto for the last election, this time from page 67:
“Because we are serious about redistributing power, we will restore the balance between the government and Parliament by … allowing MPs the time to scrutinise law effectively”.
Rarely in the history of manifesto betrayals can there have been such a quick retreat from the position taken in the manifesto to the practice adopted by the Government in their handling of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in the House of Commons. The coalition, in the metaphorical smoke-filled room—metaphorical because I do not suppose for a second that there was any real smoke in it—devised a scheme, which we see expressed in this Bill, to seize yet more power for the Executive over the House of Commons. Bogus justifications were produced. It was noted that Members of Parliament were unpopular as a consequence of the expenses scandal; it was noted that there was a deficit that needed to be corrected; so the justification was contrived for reducing the number of Members of the House of Commons.
One of the justifications offered was on the grounds of saving public expenditure. We are told that if you reduce the size of the House of Commons by 50 Members of Parliament, you will save £12 million. On that basis, if you reduce the size of the House of Commons by 100 Members of Parliament, you will save £24 million. A reduction of 200 Members will save £48 million. But what price an effective House of Commons, and what price a representative democracy that enables the people of this country, through their representatives, to hold their Government to account? I think that that is worth more than £12 million.
The result of this legislation, if we fail to amend it with one or other of these amendments or something on Report, will be an even smaller proportion of Back-Benchers who are even less capable, in an already enfeebled House of Commons, of holding the Executive to account. One of the consequences of the enfeeblement of the House of Commons is that Members of your Lordships’ House feel that they have an increased responsibility to step in where the House of Commons has emasculated itself and denied itself the capacity to do the job that those who elected it expected it to do.
Lord Soley
I rise not only to support my noble friend with or without the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton—I think there is an interesting debate to be had there—but to say above all that I regard this as a very important proposed new clause, which I hope and expect the Government to indicate some degree of willingness to move on. The reality is that, like the figure of 600, this discussion takes us back quite a few years. That discussion, as I have said in previous debates, has been around at least since 2004, when Andrew Tyrie MP wrote about it in his pamphlet, but it goes further back than that. Some noble Lords may have heard the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on the Conservative side, and me saying that we had discussed the reduction in the size of the House of Commons in the 1980s or possibly the early 1990s. We always said—this was said on both sides of the House by people who took this view—that if you reduced the size of the House of Commons, two things had to be at the forefront of our minds. First, it should be by all-party agreement; and, secondly, there must be a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons.
There were two reasons for that predominantly. One has been well spelled out. I shall not dwell on it in great detail, but it is glaringly obvious that if you keep the same number of Ministers and the payroll vote is exactly the same, you reduce the number of MPs, give greater power and influence to the Executive, and reduce the power and influence of the legislature. That is why this is so important.
I had not thought of the other reason until I heard Professor King of Essex University explain it. He is right that if you reduce what he calls the gene pool from which Ministers are pulled—the Back-Benchers—the gene pool that is available for new Ministers will be reduced. That is important, too. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, talked about the importance of the quality of Ministers. If you do not reduce the number of Ministers but simply reduce the number of Back-Benchers, that will inevitably affect the quality as well as the quantity available to a Prime Minister from which to draw.
As I say, the argument goes back many years. I am frustrated and angry about our current position because we have been crying out for these reforms for some years, but they can be done only in a consensual and thoughtful manner. The Bill leaves bits out, rushes things and tries to do it without all-party agreement, which makes it difficult. Many on the Conservative Front Bench, when in opposition or in government, have said that they recognise the importance of dealing with the number of Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others have said, “We must wait for House of Lords reform”, but that is a very dangerous philosophy. Reform of the House of Lords will not be easy, not least because of strong feelings on the government Benches. Even if they think it will be easier than I do, the chances of getting this through at the same time will not necessarily be good. There will be that sort of battle all the time. This is so important that it ought to be linked in a Bill with the reduction in the size of the House of Commons. I do not know anyone either in the House of Commons in the past 20 years or in this House who has not recognised that if you reduce the size of the House of Commons, you ought to reduce the number of Ministers. I do not see how you can argue against that. If you are going to do it you should do it together, and in the same Bill.
Lord Goldsmith
I wonder whether my noble friend with his great experience in the other place can help the House. I have been puzzling about the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, since he made it. I do not understand how changes in this House will increase the ability of Back-Benchers in the other place to hold the Government to account. Can my noble friend tell us whether it has anything at all to do with holding the Government to account in the democratically elected House of Commons?
Lord Soley
My noble and learned friend anticipates me to some extent. He is exactly right. I recognise the political reality that the two parties—the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—have formed a coalition and have to agree to somehow stitch the Bill together. Of course, things get left out or it is difficult to change it. However, even the Liberal Democrats were arguing—and arguing strongly as I understand it—for a reduction in the number of Ministers, which makes it very hard to understand why it is not in this Bill now. It is not impossible. Instead, it is somehow being left to a change in the House of Lords; you get the feeling that one party or the other in the coalition is hoping that this will not happen or that will not happen and that then maybe they can get another part of the deal, and so on. If the coalition is that unstable, it is not going to last. My advice would be to try and get this in the Bill now or get a very strong commitment from the Government that it will be brought forward in another form before the House of Commons is reduced.
I want to go back to something that has already been said which is also very important. We tend to look at this simply in terms of the number of people on the government Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Howarth made the very important point that you have Front Benches in the other parties. All the other parties have Front-Bench speakers. All of them are thinking to their future to some extent. Inevitably, again, this reduces the power of the legislature to hold the Executive to account.
It will probably alarm some of my friends, but I considered at one stage that there was quite a strong case for having Ministers drawn from outside the House who could be brought into the House and cross-examined and questioned. That would really put the cat among the pigeons—an almost presidential system. You can make a number of interesting innovations with our constitution, although I certainly would not go too far down this road right now. I want to say and emphasise as strongly as I can that to reduce the size of the House of Commons without simultaneously reducing the size of the Government is an invitation to the Government to increase their power at the expense of the legislature. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, thinks, there is no guarantee that he will get what he spoke about at a later stage when the House of Lords is changed, as my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith indicated in his intervention.
We have to bite on this bullet. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, recognises the importance of this argument because, when I was talking about where the figure of 600 came from in the previous debates about this, he indicated that we would come to this under this proposed new clause. I am waiting with anticipation for him to say, “Yes, you’re all right, I’ll accept it”. There is no reason why ideally he could not accept the proposed new clause or redraft it in some way, maybe coming back to the House with some variation which we would all look at, and there is absolutely no reason why he should not stand up and say, “I guarantee that we will bring in a reduction in the number of Ministers in the House of Commons before the figure of 600 is imposed on the House of Commons”. That is what this House is waiting to hear. It is what, as other people have said, has been promised all along about reducing the power of the Executive and so on, and it will not be delivered without a very strong commitment that the number of Ministers will be reduced before the figure of 600 is brought into the House of Commons.
I have been saying for some time that the two reasons given by a number of people from the Conservative Party over the years for the reduction to 600 has been, first, saving money and, secondly, the belief that the Labour Party gets too many seats in Parliament and the Conservative Party would get more. This is in a number of speeches, press statements and booklets written by Conservative Members which I quoted the other week. Andrew Tyrie wrote a good document back in 2004 for the Conservative Party—although, as I say, I did not agree with his statistics—saying that the figure should be reduced to either 600 or 550 over a period of five to 10 years. He had the good grace—as did most of the Conservative commentators—to say that this should be done in co-operation with the Labour Party, although the phrase I would prefer to see used is “after all-party agreement”, probably in a Speaker’s Conference. However, Andrew Tyrie also made the point, as have other Members on the Conservative side as well as the Labour side, that any reduction in the size of the House of Commons had to be matched by a reduction in the size of the payroll vote. In our new-found spirit of co-operation, I hope that the Minister—we have not quite got round to the negotiations yet, but I know that he is thinking about it—will indicate very strongly that everybody wants this measure really. To put it off until some hopeful date when the House of Lords is reformed is, frankly, at best the triumph of hope over experience and at worst disruptive and will not achieve the aim that most of us want.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am delighted to have been encouraged to leap to my feet. I was so enjoying the noble Lord, Lord Myners, who was in danger of slipping into his anecdotage, but it was great fun and he made some good, serious points as well, which I enjoyed. Some of what he said about his time in government should be taken up as a specialist seminar in itself, which some noble Lords wanted to encourage. The noble Lord demonstrated his experience and knowledge of Government because of course my brief says “resist”. But noble Lords should not be too disappointed by that because I hope to demonstrate that although it says “resist” what it means is “resist but”, and I shall get to the “but” in a moment.
This issue was substantially debated in another place, but the noble and learned Lord who introduced the amendment here has given us an opportunity to have another fine debate in this House. Therein lies the point, because as some noble Lords have spotted, the Government have never objected to the spirit behind the amendment. As the noble and learned Lord said and others such as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, spotted, this Government are committed to passing power from the Executive to Parliament. That much was witnessed by the swift moves to implement the Wright committee’s recommendations for the other place to establish the Back-Bench Business Committee passing control of much more parliamentary time to Back-Bench Members of Parliament and the power to elect the chairs and members of Select Committees. That is not letting any grass grow under the feet of the Government—fast action straight away.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has also become the first Prime Minister in history to give up the power to call a general election at the time of his choosing, so noble Lords will know that this Government are not looking to extend their own influence. This Government believe on principle that power should be dispersed.
In this particular instance, we do not see the need to rush to legislate. There are four and a half years until the provisions of the Bill will take effect. If we want to have new boundaries based on smaller number of seats at the next general election, we have to legislate now to give the boundary commissions the time to carry out their reviews and the parties time to prepare for the election. If we want to have fewer Ministers after the next election, we do not have to legislate now. In fact, we do not necessarily have to legislate at all. In any case, the heart of the matter appears to be not the number of Ministers in the House of Commons but the size of the Government’s payroll vote in the House of Commons. That includes Parliamentary Private Secretaries who are not covered by the current legislation and would not be covered by the amendment that we are discussing. As my honourable friend the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons has said, it is only by “self-denying ordinance” that the number of PPSs is limited.
Clearly, the Government have been capable of self-restraint. That self-restraint will still be necessary should the amendment be adopted. So if the intention of the amendment is to try to limit that influence and bind future Governments, it would fail on that count alone. In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, realised, the legislation would not cover the number of opposition Front-Benchers. Although they are of a different type of influence and a different type of patronage, it is also relevant if the concern is that there are too few independent voices from the Back-Benches. The Government's position is that it is not—
Lord Goldsmith
I am very interested in the noble Lord’s observation about the defect in my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s amendment. Can we look forward to a government amendment on Report which will correct that by making sure that it controls the number of PPSs as well as that of Ministers in the same proportionate manner?
Lord Strathclyde
I am going to come to that but the noble and learned Lord should not hold his breath for me making a commitment to return on Report, because we need to look at the ramifications of doing all of this. The Government’s position is that it is not desirable that the payroll vote should be expanded as a proportion of the House’s membership. We have said that we will look at how to address this, and we will do so. I wonder whether that was the ringing and unconditional commitment that the noble and learned Lord was looking for. I think that it probably was not—I think that he wanted a bit more than that—but it was pretty good.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I was going to support this amendment even before hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, but his point, which I had not considered before, is one that the Minister really ought to consider. Speaking from experience of having to deal with inquiries and judicial review against government, the fact is that if you do not provide any form of outlet for local opinion and for people who are unhappy about decisions that are being taken, they will look for other ways. The legal profession is sufficiently innovative and able, as the noble and learned Lord knows, to find ways of doing it if we do not provide it. That is an enormously important point.
I would have supported the amendment in any event on the basis of the effect on the population and on localism. He and I have heard much about that in our debates, and rightly so. I look across to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. We come from the same city of Liverpool, where localism for his party might have been born. Certainly I saw it in operation there. It is therefore surprising to see that a critical part of that—the ability of local people to say what they think about this issue—is being removed entirely. Is it not plain, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said, that the real reason the Government are doing this is not because they think it will give more power to the people, which is what their programme is about, but because they are worried about delay? However, my noble and learned friend’s amendment deals with that. If the Government think that they can tighten it a little more but accept the principle, no doubt they can say so.
The really important point is this, and I support the noble and learned Lord in saying it: do not remove all opportunity to have a form of local inquiry that enables people not only to say what they think, but often to provide information and advice that, when it is heard by those who are making the final decision about boundaries, makes a difference. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will be positive about this amendment. If he tinkers with it and brings back slightly different time limits, those on the Front Bench on this side will no doubt consider those carefully. However, the principle is important.
Lord Goldsmith
I really must object to that comment from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who, as far as I can see, has been in the Chamber for only the past five minutes. I have been speaking for less than that. That really was an unhelpful comment. He should know better than that.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for introducing this amendment and for the very helpful and constructive spirit in which he proposed it. I also thank the other noble Lords who made important contributions to this relatively short but important debate.
The amendment seeks to introduce a public inquiry stage into the boundary review process, allowing the Boundary Commissions to hold a public inquiry where representations are received from any interested local authority or from 100 or more interested electors.
As we made clear in our response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in the previous debate, and in our responses on local government ward boundaries and existing parliamentary constituencies, the Government's position has been that we are open to considering reasonable improvements to the process, provided that they do not compromise the fundamental principles of the Bill, and that still remains our position.
It is not a fundamental principle of the Bill that there should be no oral inquiries. The decision to end the process of oral inquiries, which appears in this Bill, was in fact taken on the basis of the evidence before us, when we came to consider the most effective consultation process for boundary reviews, which is what we are all trying to achieve.
Among the many contributions that we have heard not just this evening but over a number of Committee sittings, the case has been made tonight that local inquiries are an important safety valve because they allow everyone, as we might put it, to have their day in court. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, made that very point. It allows people to have their say. My view is that this is perhaps the only objective of local inquiries: for which any credible argument can be mounted in their favour. Evidence and academic opinion indicate that local inquiries are perhaps far more effective in principle than in practice.
Local inquiries do not as a rule consist of the general public having their say on boundary proposals. Professor Ron Johnston—whose namechecks in these debates are now getting quite considerable; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer quoted him—and his colleagues have concluded that the public inquiry process is “dominated by political parties”, describing the process as,
“very largely an exercise in allowing the political parties to seek influence over the Commission's recommendations—in which their sole goal is to promote their own electoral interests”.
Of course, he is perfectly right; political parties play a vital role in our democracy, and there is nothing wrong with parties contributing fully to the boundary review process. It is inevitable that they are going to do that, but if we are considering what would be gained by the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, which would restore oral inquiries in some form, we should not imagine that we would necessarily be giving the public a better chance to have their say. We would be looking to restore a potentially long process to which parties will send Queen's Counsel in their attempts to secure the most favourable outcome for their electoral prospects, certainly if history is anything to go by. It may be that the quasi-judicial nature of the local inquiry process could act as a disincentive to public participation by ordinary people who hope to have their say.
Our intention is that a written consultation process, with the existing period for representations extended from one month to three, will actually amount to a much more effective way to allow a level playing field for the general public who wish to have their say. Whatever the merits of the cases that are made for exceptions in this Bill—for example, for the Isle of Wight—I do not think that anyone could doubt that the people involved were very successful in making their voices heard through petitions, campaigns and websites.
There is little evidence, too, that local inquiries bring to light evidence that would not otherwise be considered. In an earlier debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, gave us an example of when a public inquiry had changed the boundary of the West Bromwich East constituency to reflect local geography, using a dual carriageway in place of a defunct railway line as a point of orientation. I am sure that that was a sensible change, and I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord that local knowledge is immensely important in these matters, but I do not see why that could not have been raised as part of an extended consultation period, as proposed by this Bill.
That is why changes that are made following local inquiries are often minor. At the fifth general review in England, for example, only 2 per cent of wards in English counties where inquiries were held were moved between constituencies as a result. Robin Gray, a former boundary commissioner already quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that Professor Ron Johnston was,
“absolutely right about the impact that public inquiries had on the Commission’s initial recommendations. In a lot of cases there was no change”.
The evidence given by the Boundary Commission for Wales to the Welsh Affairs Committee is also instructive on this point. In evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the secretary of the Welsh commission said that,
“during the fifth general review, there were four issues that the Commission changed its mind on as a result of the consultation process. Perhaps I should say that, while these issues were raised in the local inquiries they were also raised beforehand in the written representations. In one sense, the Commission, before the local inquiries, had in its mind that modifications were required in the draft proposals”.
That brings me to the evidence of Ron Johnston before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which was quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Professor Johnston, as we have acknowledged, has been much quoted in these debates. I think that anyone reading his evidence and his previous work will reach the same conclusion that the committee reached in its report that the result of Professor Johnston’s extensive research into the topic, and oral inquiries in particular, led him to,
“generally welcome the abolition of public inquiries”.
I stress that, not because somehow Professor Johnston’s view is the only one that counts, but because it dispels the theory that only we on the government Benches somehow hold the view that oral inquiries are not necessarily the best way to achieve the objective that we all want, which is a robust consultation process at which everyone, including those who are not able to appoint legal counsel on their behalf, can have their say on a commission’s proposals.
However, in the same session, Robin Gray stated that he believed public inquiries added value because they provided assurance that the,
“issues have been looked at and debated”—
perhaps an echo of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.
One charge that cannot be laid against oral inquiries in the past is that they were anything less than thorough in this regard. This lengthy process, however, goes to the heart of one of the key principles in the Bill, which was identified by the noble and learned Lord when he moved his amendment. If no action is taken the boundaries in force at the next general election will be 15 years out of date, if we do not proceed to get a boundary review and report by October 2013, as set out in the Bill. We believe that it is simply not fair to electors—most notably all those who have come on to the register in the past 15 years. I believe that noble Lords opposite share our concern about this. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, made that very point. I readily acknowledge that the amendment attempts to address it by limiting the triggers for inquiries and placing a limit on their duration, and I very much welcome how that has been presented by the noble and learned Lord.
It is also important that we listen carefully and reflect on what was said by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Goldsmith, not least on the question of judicial review—judicial review if you do not have oral inquiries and judicial review if you do have oral inquiries. There is an argument that the proposal in the amendment to give the Boundary Commission the decision on whether to hold an inquiry in each constituency where the requirements in the amendment are met would also lead to a risk of judicial reviews of the Boundary Commission’s decisions on that point.
Important issues have been raised. I have indicated not just in this debate but in others that the principle should be that reviews must be conducted more quickly so that the pattern of representation in the other place represents the reality of where electors live now, not of history. That goes to the heart of fairer and more equally weighted votes throughout the United Kingdom, which is a core objective of the Bill. We will obviously want to consider the noble and learned Lord’s concerns on the issue of judicial reviews—as I have said, if you have them or if you do not have them. Subject to meeting the key principle, which I have indicated, I am content to take the noble and learned Lord’s amendment and consider the thinking behind it to see whether it offers a way in which the advantage that I acknowledge an inquiry can provide—a sense of “a day in court”—can be retained. On that basis, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Goldsmith Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Indeed, my noble friend, the most eminent professor, has never been there.
My view is that this should be a matter for the electors; their views should have a big say. It may be that these two amendments can come together to meet the essence of what we both want. I am trying to stress that this decision should not be taken by the political class; it should be taken after hearing from voters, citizens and those who will become voters how they think they can best be represented. How will people want to relate to their elected Members? Will it be by phone and e-mail? Will it be in person, one to one, or will it be through groups? I am not on Facebook, but people increasingly want their views to be heard through groups and texting, along with others of a similar position.
That may result in all sorts of needs for the size of the House, because it may be better to go, as I think was said on the Benches opposite earlier, for big constituencies, rather like the old Euro constituencies, which were the size of nine of our current constituencies. It was clear to electors that that was not where they should take local issues and that they should go to their councillors, or that they should take just big policy issues to Members of Parliament. I am not certain whether that is the right or the wrong answer. Perhaps we should have smaller constituencies, so that people can meet their representatives more. The needs of the electors should be uppermost in our minds, or in the minds of those who take these decisions, in relation to the number of seats and, therefore, the relationship that Members can have with their electors.
The same applies to the personal issues or issues of policy that electors have. Again, it may be that people will much more want to gather together, whether they have an interest in the environment, historic buildings, health or education. They may want to be grouped much more when talking about policy. Surely these issues need serious debate, rather than a quick and easy decision.
I do not know what the right number should be but, from my work with the consumers and users of any service, I know that they want to be asked, to be consulted and to be involved in those decisions before the decision is taken. That is why I support my noble friend Lord Soley in calling for an independent commission to work on this, to do real work with voters and to think about those sorts of issues. Then we might get an answer that is accepted by the whole electorate and provides for a House of Commons that really reflects the will of the people.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I too support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Soley. It is a hugely important issue—I am troubled that there is some appearance on the other side of the House that it is not—for two reasons. First, it is hugely important for this country how our people are represented. The number of Members of Parliament, for all the reasons that have been described previously, is very important. It is also important for the reason put by my noble friend Lord Soley, and mentioned by my noble friend Lady Wall; namely, the example that we set to the rest of the world.
Other Members of this House have the experience, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, spoke about, of the Council of Europe talking to other countries and helping them to build their democracies and their systems. I have that experience, through a slightly different route, through the work that I have done across the world involved with human rights organisations and lawyers’ organisations. I ask myself this question: if they said to me, “Why have you reduced the number of Members of Parliament? What was the reason for it? What was the rationale? How did you arrive at the number?”, at the moment I can do no better than refer to the answer given to the Select Committee on the Constitution, on which I have the honour to serve.
When we pressed the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Mr Mark Harper, with the question, “Why have you chosen 600?”, he could not answer. He told us that it was not a horse trade and that he did not think that it would qualitatively affect the representation of people in this country. But he could not tell us where the number came from. He ended by saying, and here I quote from paragraph 28 of our report:
“I am not going to pretend that there is a magic science to all this”.
I have been listening to cross-examinations all my life, so when someone says that there is no “magic science” to something, what they mean is that there is no science at all. There is no basis for this figure. I cannot explain to people across the world why Britain, the cradle of democracy, has chosen this number. They will know that people have accused the Government of looking to find a way of reducing the number of seats for the party in opposition if I cannot even explain the Government’s own view.
The merit of both the amendments, although I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Soley rather than that of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, is that they do two things. They propose a rational way of deciding what the right number should be and they provide it in a way that is either independent or at least non-partisan. Both have the merit that after the event people cannot say, as has been said in this House, that this is being done just in order to favour one party rather than another. I do not want to be part of a democracy, with the tradition we have, where that is what is said about us.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we are dealing with that under Amendment 91 later on. I look forward very much to hearing what the noble and learned Lord has to say when we get to it.
Lord Goldsmith
I am afraid that the noble Lord is going to have to listen to me about it now. I have explained to him why I want to speak.
Lord Strathclyde
There is a fundamental regulation in this House that we speak to the amendments that have been moved. I have respectfully pointed out to the noble and learned Lord that the amendment to which he wishes to speak will, I am sure, be moved later on. That is when we should discuss it. He should stick to the rules of the House.
Lord Goldsmith
I am absolutely sticking to the rules of the House because what both of these amendments propose is an assessment rationally based on evidence as to what the numbers should be. It is impossible, in my view, to answer that question without knowing what the relationship between the Executive and the legislature is going to be. Let me remind the noble Lord and members of the party opposite of what was said by the Deputy Prime Minister in explaining the rationale of the constitutional reform being put forward. One of the things he said was this:
“It is an unambiguous judgment on our part that reducing the power of the executive, seeking to boost the power of the legislature, making the legislature more accountable to the people … collectively introduces the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater control over politicians”.
These are good and fine thoughts, but how do you unambiguously reduce the power of the Executive or seek to boost the power of the legislature if you reduce the number of Back-Bench MPs and do not proportionately or in some other way reduce the membership of the Executive?
It may be that it is not right, as the later amendment proposes, to do that simply on a proportionate basis, but in the Constitution Committee we asked both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister, Mr Mark Harper, about the relationship between the Executive and Back Benchers after these reforms. I remind noble Lords what they both said—it is in paragraph 32 of the seventh report of the Select Committee on the Constitution:
“The Deputy Prime Minister recognised that ‘There is a strong argument that says that you must look at this and adapt the number of people who are on the government payroll so that you do not get a lopsided imbalance between those on the payroll and those holding them to account’”.
He is quite right. When is that going to happen? He said: “I totally accept that”, but it is not happening in the Bill. Unless the Leader of the House is going to surprise us by accepting the amendment later—I strongly suspect that he is not going to do anything of the sort—it is not going to happen in the Bill.
The Minister was asked the same question. He also accepted that,
“there is a problem that needs to be dealt with”,
but argued that the Bill is not the right vehicle to do it. What I say, and I care about constitutional reform—sadly, lawyers do—is that this House is being asked to accept, and indeed the country is being asked to accept, a change in the balance between the Executive and Back-Benchers, purportedly in the context of a programme which argues for a reduction in the power of the Executive in circumstances where we do not know what the end result will be.
Lord Martin of Springburn
On the power of the Executive, I accept the noble and learned Lord’s case that we have to reduce the Executive, but will he accept that when that reduction takes place those who are left should respect the constitution of this country and that the first people to be informed of any ministerial change should be the Members on the Floor of the House of Commons? I am not putting him, as a former Minister of the Crown, in this category, but there were Cabinet Ministers and junior Ministers who could not wait to get into a television studio, but would not come to the Floor of the House. That is why Urgent Questions were accepted. Complaints would come from the then Opposition about this practice, and now I see that the roles are reversed. We are back to square one and there are Ministers who love going to the media, but are not prepared to come to the Floor of the House. The Executive should always be prepared to get on to the Floor of the House.
Lord Goldsmith
I entirely agree with the noble Lord and I apologise for not realising that he wanted to intervene. The point that he makes is that part of the point of the relationship between the Executive and the legislature—the Executive and Back-Benchers—is precisely that Back-Benchers and Parliament as a whole can keep Ministers to account. If you get an imbalance, where the Executive stays the same but the number of Back-Benchers reduces by 10 per cent or thereabouts, that ability for accountability disappears.
I come back to the question raised by the Leader of the House—why is this relevant to this amendment? It is relevant to this amendment—to both amendments—because both talk about the need for assessing on a rational basis what the right position should be. I do not see, given how important is the relationship between the Executive and the rest of the legislature, how we can address the issue without dealing with the number of Back-Benchers compared to the size of the Executive. An independent commission could look at the question and make recommendation; so, indeed, no doubt, could a Speaker’s Conference. Either of the amendments has the benefit of that assessment.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Does my noble and learned friend accept that, when he talks about the members of the Executive as a whole, he should include not only the Government, but also Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the numbers of whom have proliferated and who feel themselves equally to be within the big tent of government?
Lord Goldsmith
My noble friend Lord Anderson is right about that, which is one of the issues that needs to be dealt with.
On the essential principle, these two amendments raise the critical question: do we have to rush to judgment about the number of MPs, and how should that number be reached? I am going to listen with great interest to what the Minister says—perhaps he will come up with a better answer than the one that the Select Committee on the Constitution of your Lordships’ House was given—but at the moment there is no answer as to why, in those circumstances, the number should not be determined independently, or at least on a non-partisan basis, by rational judgment and by evidence. The case for that, in my view, is overwhelming.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the spirit of Amendments 59 and 60.
First, though, the suggestion has been made more than once in the past few hours that it is wrong in some way for this House to be concerned with matters that affect the membership of the House of Commons and how those Members should be elected. That, in my respectful submission, is an utterly absurd view. Parliament is one and indivisible. Whether we like it or not, we are wholly responsible as one of the Houses of Parliament—technically, the senior House, although that is not so in practice vis-à-vis the elected House—and we have a duty. That trusteeship means that we cannot avoid scrutinising in the greatest detail anything that affects the future of Parliament as a whole.
Having said that, I believe that, as has been spelt out clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, both amendments have this in common: they are a cri de coeur for a grave and weighty constitutional problem to be decided on the basis not of a stab in the dark nor of instinctive feelings—no matter how genuine those feelings are—but of evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, with whose speech I completely concurred, in a very scholarly dissemination of the problem—as one would expect from a distinguished historian—put the matter clearly in the context of history, whereas the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, put the matter in the context of law. As one who has spent most of his time in the courts, in one way or another, I ask myself this question: if a grave and weighty decision is to be arrived at by any tribunal, how can that tribunal decide other than on the basis of cogent evidence and on the basis of questions such as what construction and weight should be placed upon that evidence and what conclusions and inferences should be drawn therefrom?
The argument that was put forward—with great respect, I think that I do no disservice to the noble Lord the Leader of the House nor, indeed, to the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Tyler—was this: “We know exactly what the parties think about this and what they have said in their various manifestos, so there is no need to look any further”. That misses the point completely. There is every need to look further because we all have deep instinctive feelings, probably genuine and sincerely held, but they are nevertheless no more than feelings and instincts and are not based on evidence. Whether that evidence is gathered in the way that Amendments 59 or 60 suggest or in some other way, provided that it is gathered by an authoritative, independent and well qualified body, our duty in the situation will have been met.
There are two duties in ensuring that Parliament can decide. As the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, has said, the matter should be determined not by the Speaker’s Conference or by any other conference but by Parliament. First, Parliament must be able to arrive at an informed decision on the basis of the facts—indeed, the facts may well be in dispute, and Parliament will have to select which facts it accepts and which it does not. Secondly—this is equally important—the people of this country should understand why it was that their legislators came to that decision.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Goldsmith Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, if it is not distinguished to be a close associate of the Labour Party, I withdraw it. None of my other comments was meant to remark on Mr James Goudie’s professional capacity. I said that he was a QC; I stand by that and the House knows what that means.
On the question of whether it is arguable—
Lord Goldsmith
I declare an interest as a QC. Is the noble Lord, for whom I have great respect, suggesting that the opinion of Mr James Goudie QC, which we have seen, does not represent his genuine and honest opinion on the matter? If he is not suggesting that, then the remarks he has just made, with respect, are ill-timed and ill-placed.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, of course I do not say that; nor do I think my remarks were ill-timed or misjudged. I was going to precisely make the case that Mr Goudie QC said that it was arguable that the Bill may be hybrid. Did anyone in the House hear a lawyer say that a case like this was not arguable? And when did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, fight shy of arguing it?
As is well known and understood, I am not a Silk like the noble and learned Lord or his friend Mr Goudie, but I have spent enough time in the countryside to know a sow’s ear when I see it—and I see it in this Motion. On what do I rest my case? Your Lordships have the benefit of the crisp opinion of the Clerks of your Lordships’ House, who have confirmed the view—a view they had taken even before the Bill was introduced—that this Bill is not prima facie hybrid. Indeed, in the opinion of the Clerk of Public and Private Bills, the Bill, “cannot be hybrid”. Had it been, neither the Clerks of this House nor of the other place, having examined it for that specific purpose, would have let it pass. That letter is in the Library.
Furthermore, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern wrote in a letter copied to me, the Leader of the Opposition and the Convenor of the Crossbench Peers:
“A hybrid Bill is a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category”.
On that, I am sure that we all agree. He went on to write this short line:
“I can see no ground on which it could be argued that this is a hybrid Bill”.
So what are the facts of the matter? No one’s right to vote is affected. No one’s right to vote is withdrawn. No one’s right to representation is diminished. All that the Bill seeks to do is to ensure that constituency sizes are more equal and that each voter’s voice is more equal. Underneath all the legal argumentation, what shines out from the noble and learned Lord is that equalising constituency sizes upsets the Labour Party. We all know that Labour has long benefited from this system. No one talked about hybridity then and we all know why, don’t we? It seems that the Labour Party is upset that those unique communities in the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland are protected under this Bill.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
This matter turns on a very narrow and, indeed, very simple issue. I can put it in one sentence; it is a question of what is meant or not meant by “a local interest”—not a private interest but a local interest. As far as I know, this is not defined in any statute or authoritatively defined in relation to the definition of hybrid Bills.
There are two issues, both of which are very simple, and I do not believe that one of them really arises. The first issue is whether there is a body that has a distinctive reality in relation to the words of the Companion that have been taken from page 556 of Erskine May. The second question is whether, if it has that distinction, it is dealt with differently from all the others that belong to that body. I take the second question first. There clearly is a difference in approach here in that the Western Isles and the Islands of Orkney are inviolate from any prospect of change. Many of the 600 constituencies that will remain may well escape unscathed, but they have no guarantee of being inviolate. Therefore, it seems to me that, as far as the second limb is concerned, one has clearly shown that a distinction is clearly drawn. There are 600 constituencies—assuming that 50 are lopped off—598 of which are dealt with in one way and two in another.
The first question—what is a local interest?—is not a question of a private interest. Local interest is defined in the Companion and, as I say, is taken verbatim from page 556 of Erskine May. There is no definition. In my submission, a local interest—if I am wrong in this, I will gladly come to the stool of penitence—is not a proprietary interest; it is an interest involving persons living in a locality as persons living in that locality. If I am wrong, it means that even though people living in the Orkneys or in the Western Isles are in a locality, nevertheless their locality status does not count. I believe, with very great respect, that the matter is as simple, clear and narrow as that.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I am not sure that it is necessary for your Lordships' House even to go as far as that. I invite your Lordships’ attention back to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on whether the Bill should be referred to the Examiners, not whether it is hybrid. It is a very long time since this House has sat as a court determining difficult questions. The whole point of referring a Bill to the Examiners is for them to decide independently whether it is hybrid.
I should declare an interest as a member of the Select Committee on the Constitution. I have my name down to speak in the main debate. Given that I am taking up some of your Lordships' time now, I withdraw my name from that debate, but I underline the importance of determining what test your Lordships' House should use to decide this Motion. It is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, has said, and as stated by the Speaker in another place when he ruled on the Local Government Bill in the 1962-63 Session and commented that,
“if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a Hybrid Bill, it ought to go to the examiners. There must not be a doubt about it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/62; col. 45.]
In the light of the discussion that has taken place, I invite noble Lords to consider the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on the one hand, and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, on the other, on whether it can conceivably be said that there is no doubt about it. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke in the way that he did about Mr Goudie, but in answer to my intervention he accepted that he is not saying this does not represent the honest and genuine opinion of someone who is experienced and learned in these matters. His conclusion was that it certainly could be said that this Bill was hybrid. That is why, in his view and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, it should go to the Examiners.
I wish to underline two further points. First, a lot has been said about whether the Bill affects private interests. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is absolutely right; that is not the question. The definition in the 23rd edition of Erskine May is that hybrid Bills are public Bills that are considered to affect specific private or local interests. One cannot ignore this question of locality.
Secondly and finally, I draw attention to what Mr Goudie said in his opinion at paragraph 17. That for me is the critical question which has been raised before. It is not a question of whether or not these two constituencies should be subject to special treatment—for myself, I can well see why that should be so—but a question of what the position is regarding other constituencies. Like other noble Lords, I have received communications from people in different parts of the country—from Cornwall and the Isle of Wight—asking and expressing their views about being treated in a different way. Mr Goudie says in paragraph 17,
“it is … reasonably and properly arguable that the justification (whatever precisely it may be) is capable of being urged as being applicable to other constituencies”.
My understanding of the process which is taking place is that if the examiners agree that the Bill is hybrid, it will provide an opportunity for those other constituencies to put forward their case as to why they, too, should be treated in a special and favoured way. Good luck to them if they succeed in that endeavour. For those reasons, I will support the Motion.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, perhaps I may make two brief points. I had not intended to speak. Currently, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, but that is not the point I really want to make. We are hearing passages from the written opinion of a distinguished member of the Bar, a Queen’s Counsel, and, like me, other Members must think that that is profoundly unsatisfactory. We ought not to be asked to vote—as we shall be—on hearing little snippets. If the QC’s opinion is to be used in this House, we should all have an opportunity to read it.
Intelligence and Security Services: Treatment of Detainees
Lord Goldsmith Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I cannot answer for the previous Administration. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has defended the position of the previous Government. However, we have taken action quickly and I know that my noble friend supports that. On compensation, I do not think that the two issues are related at all. We have suggested a process of mediation that could potentially lead to compensation, but that is better than the alternative, which could be years of unsatisfactory litigation in the courts. At least a process of mediation creates the possibility of creating certainty much sooner. With regard to working with other countries, we do not expect evidence to be taken from US officials. It is our intention that the inquiry will have access to material relating to foreign partners. Those partners will be consulted on the terms on which their material will be considered by the inquiry. Any intelligence material will be dealt with in private. We have, of course, discussed our plans with the US and a number of other partners.
Lord Goldsmith
Is the Minister aware that I, too, welcome this inquiry? I rather wish that I were welcoming it coming from the previous Administration rather than this one, but it is none the worse for that. The noble Lord is right that it is time to understand the truth or otherwise of these allegations, as I for one have been saying for some time.
I have three specific questions for the noble Lord. First, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of Guantanamo, rightly, because the allegations that have been made are connected with that issue. Is that an issue that the inquiry will look into—the relationship of this country to Guantanamo, the steps that were taken and why it was, as noble Lords all now agree, a wrong-headed thing for the previous US Administration to do, in principle and in practice?
Secondly, will the noble Lord help a little more on the timing of this inquiry? I understand the point about criminal proceedings and civil mediation, but I am still unclear on when this inquiry is going to be allowed to get on with its job. The more time before it starts, I suspect, the more difficult it will be.
Thirdly, the noble Lord finished his Statement by talking about future policy in relation to the use of intelligence in the courts. Is that going to include, finally, a clear answer to the question of the use of intercept evidence in court? I know that many noble Lords take a different view but for myself, from the position that I have held in the past, I believe that it is important to find a way of using such evidence in criminal proceedings. Will that be a part of the policy that will be announced?
Lord Strathclyde
Again, my Lords, it is encouraging to receive the noble and learned Lord’s welcome and support for the principles that underlie the Statement. It is important, when we are dealing with these matters of national security, that there is as wide an agreement across the parties as possible. The noble and learned Lord’s experience in this matter will give a lot of encouragement to others who are involved.
His first question was whether the inquiry will look at the reasons behind Guantanamo. I expect that it will be up to the inquiry to take a view about how important that is, and I cannot answer for the inquiry. I do not suppose that the topic will be excluded, but if it is, I shall write to the noble and learned Lord.
Secondly, on the timing of the inquiry, we would like it to start as soon as possible but it cannot begin until most of the legal proceedings have been dealt with, hence the reason for coming forward with mediation. It depends on the satisfactory resolution of the other legal proceedings. I also agree with what the noble and learned Lord said: the longer it is delayed, the more difficult it is to have this inquiry, so it is in everyone’s interest to reach the start date as soon as possible.
As for the noble and learned Lord’s third question, about the future and intercept evidence, I have my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones, our Security Minister, next to me here. The whole issue of intercept evidence still has to be resolved.