Death of a Member: Baroness Thatcher

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, in paying my tribute to Margaret Thatcher, I can now share with the House a little piece of history. I was Airey Neave’s unofficial PPS in 1975, and chief bag carrier. My job was to help him organise the future leader of the Conservative Party. In the initial stages, we met in Room J3 in the House of Commons; it was my job to book it, et cetera. The first person that the Neave team supported was not Margaret Thatcher; it was Edward du Cann. That campaign produced 80 or 85 supporters; it was around those sorts of numbers. However, Edward came to that group and made it clear that he did not wish to stand as the future leader, because he had recently married and he and his wife had discussed the situation and he was withdrawing his candidature.

We had an immediate meeting of the group and went through the others forecast to be running, and the consensus was that we should ask Margaret to join us. At that point, the information was that Margaret had precisely two supporters. I was asked to make contact, which I did, and Margaret came to address our meeting in Room J3. It was clear from the way that she addressed that meeting that this was a woman of considerable potential. Several Members this afternoon have mentioned “strategy”; she had a very clear strategy at that meeting, and had sensed what the party wanted in a new leader. Airey turned to me when Margaret had finished and said, “We’ll have no questions now. Would you be kind enough, Michael, to take Margaret to the room next door and come back?”, which I did. We had a fairly lengthy discussion. The unanimous view of the people present, except for three, was that we should support Margaret Thatcher. Most of the rest is history, other than that I was in charge of trying to persuade the 1974 intake to support Margaret.

The second example I give of Margaret and her ability and understanding of people and countries was after we took over in 1979 and I was on the Back Benches as a PPS in Northern Ireland. Even then, I had an interest in Sri Lanka. Judith Hart had commissioned something called the Victoria Dam in Sri Lanka. I knew about the dam—it would cost about £100 million—and I asked to see the Prime Minister to suggest to her that the project should go ahead. I had an audience with her, and with the then Overseas Development Secretary of State, and Margaret said, “Michael, there are two points I make to you: first, that if we as a country have an agreement with another country”—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said earlier today—“we stick to it. So the agreement is that the project will go ahead. Not only will it go ahead but, secondly, I wish to be there at the opening”.

Some years later I was pleased to be there with Margaret and Denis, and we had a garden party before the formal opening at the dam. The big thing in Sri Lanka in those days was the President’s elephant named Raja. Denis was asked whether he wished to give bananas to the elephant, and of course accepted. Unfortunately for Denis, he was not too good on the anatomy of an elephant. Denis decided that elephants took bananas through their trunks. Just as Margaret was about to tell him, “No, don’t put it in his trunk”, it was too late. Denis put half a dozen bananas in the trunk of the elephant, which then did a typical elephant snort and the rest of us were covered by bananas. Margaret said, “I thought I told you early on, ‘Put it in his mouth, not in his trunk’. Did you not hear me?”.

Those are my two personal memories. As some of you know, I take a great interest in history. If Cromwell was the catalyst of parliamentary democracy, then in my judgment Margaret Thatcher will go down as the person who was the catalyst to change our country into the country it is today.

Algeria

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby]

The speed with which the Prime Minister moved in calling COBRA meetings and the Government as a whole moved in bringing back our colleagues who survived is greatly to be welcomed. The Prime Minister mentioned in his Statement that priority will now be given to bringing back the remains of those who have died. To that end, I wonder whether it might not be in the interests of all parties if a senior coroner, or a recently retired coroner, was hastily made one of that team to ensure that, if at all possible, this can be done even more quickly than has ever been achieved before.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments both about the way in which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has handled this crisis and also his points about the importance of resolving the problem of repatriating these bodies—which is a deeply distressing thing for all the families concerned—as soon as possible. I know that officials in our embassy and from the police are working closely with the Algerian authorities in the kind of way he describes to resolve it as rapidly as possible.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wakeham]

My Lords, I do not often intervene in these matters, and no one could expect me not to understand the position of the usual channels, but I have listened to this debate with some horror. In my view, these matters should have been resolved by the usual channels and it is very disappointing that the Front Benches are unable to find a sensible and satisfactory agreement. Often, finding such an agreement means persuading their Back-Benchers to do something that initially they may not want to do. If I may say so, the job of the Front Benches is not to be the cheerleader for the Back Benches; it is to find the best solution for the House. When there is no agreement between the Back Benches, the question arises of what the House should do. In my view, the responsibility then falls on the Leader of the House to do what he thinks is best for the whole House. Without going into the details, where there is a disagreement between the usual channels, the House would be right to support the Leader of the House in what he proposes.

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, I just make an observation as a former Chairman of Ways and Means and as someone who was responsible for the Finance Bill for five years in another place. In my experience, each Bill was very different. Sometimes the usual channels, and indeed individual Members, chose to make representations that certain clauses should be taken on the Floor of the House, with others—often the majority—being taken in Committee. I remember one occasion when a great deal of a Bill was taken on the Floor of the House, mainly due to representations from the minority parties that went against the proposals from the usual channels. Nevertheless, I reflect that last Monday night the key issue to come out was unanimity across the House that this was the most important financial Bill that this House had seen in probably the living memory of anyone here. The second thing that came out was that it was not a partisan Bill—there was no inter-party challenge—and that this House, with its width of experience, was best able to debate the Bill in depth.

I deeply regret that now, on the first Monday since then, what I thought had been settled by the usual channels in the normal way is not settled. That is a very unsatisfactory situation, and maybe my noble friend, as the Leader, will either follow what my noble friend Lord Wakeham said or recognise that the House as a whole may need 24 hours to quieten down a little. Looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on the Cross Benches, I am reminded that she once said to me, “You didn’t give them long enough to settle it, Michael”.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the reason we have the usual channels is precisely to avoid the sort of debate that we have had this afternoon. It is a personal sadness to me that the usual channels broke down, which means that the House must make a decision.

The other reason to have usual channels is that we can have these debates behind closed doors where no one sees them. When the public look at this debate and listen to it on the radio and television, what will they see? They will see that the question is a very simple one: either we should have the debate on the Floor of this House or the very same people debating the very same issues should take their debate about 25 yards down that Corridor. That is all this debate is fundamentally about. This is against a background where, until a week ago, the Opposition and the Government were totally unified, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said so well, on the basis that scrutiny would be better placed in Grand Committee rather than here on the Floor of the House.

Before the House is drawn into the seductive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, noble Lords should recall that only last week he said that this House should always sit when the House of Commons is sitting. I took a view earlier this year, having taken soundings around the House, that the overwhelming view of your Lordships was not to sit in September. I do not mind sitting in September—I have done it in the past and I shall be here—but noble Lords must recognise that if we do not send Bills to Grand Committee and have them on the Floor of the House, we will need more sitting days of the House in order to complete our business. It is a very simple proposition. No one is suggesting sending another major Bill to the Grand Committee.

Office of Fair Trading

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 13th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have to review the performance, management and remit of the Office of Fair Trading following the recent quashing of cases on appeal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)]

My Lords, last year, the Government consulted on proposals to reform the competition regime including merging the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to create a single Competition and Markets Authority. Among other things, the consultation sought views on proposals to improve the enforcement of the anti-trust prohibitions. The Government will announce their conclusions following the consultation shortly.

[Lord Naseby]

Is my noble friend aware of just how many of our great companies—British Airways, Shell, Unilever, Tesco, the Co-op and Balfour Beatty—have been investigated over several years for alleged price fixing, fined nearly a quarter of a billion pounds by the OFT, only for each case to collapse because there was no basis in fact, law or economics to support them? The net result is a huge bill for the taxpayer to pay the legal fees. Will my noble friend call for a review of the board’s oversight and the senior management’s lack of quality control over which cases to tackle? After all, there are 600 employees at the OFT costing us £60 million per annum, let alone compensation to the companies that have been improperly charged.

[Baroness Wilcox]

I obviously cannot anticipate the Government's announcement, but we aim to build on the best of the OFT and the best of the Competition Commission in the creation of a world-leading Competition and Markets Authority. The Government recognise that the system for the enforcement of the anti-trust prohibitions is not working as well as it should. Cases take too long and a strong challenge to decisions is often mounted on appeal. It is worth remembering that we have a reputation in the world as being one of the best places in which markets work. Markets work well here. They are open and fair. We have to make sure that we have timely and effective enforcement. That is what the consultation has been about.

Planning: Naseby Wind Farm

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Secretary of State will intervene in the decision to build a wind farm overlooking the site of the Battle of Naseby.

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as the patron of the Naseby Battlefield Project.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, I assume—I hope correctly—that my noble friend’s Question relates to the proposed wind farm at Kelmarsh, which has been the subject of a recent planning appeal. In that case, the decision has been made by a planning inspector acting on behalf of the Secretary of State and is final unless it is challenged in the High Court. The period in which a High Court challenge can take place has not yet expired, so I cannot comment on this case.

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, is it not extraordinary that our precious battlefield sites of Hastings, Bosworth, Culloden and Naseby can be spoilt by wind farms, especially when planning guidance PPS5, introduced less than a year ago by the present Government, specifically mentions the need to protect the setting of a heritage site? How can one inspector ignore PPS5 on the—in my judgment—spurious grounds that wind farms are limited by time as their life is only 25 years? Will the Minister think again and come with me to the viewpoint, which is funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, and see the impact that six windmills will have from Colonel Oakey and Prince Rupert’s viewpoints? Surely the Secretary of State needs to recognise that we do not have the funds to challenge in the High Court. However, the Secretary of State has the right to call in at any point, and I ask my noble friend to convey that to him.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I hear very clearly what the noble Lord has said. As I said, I cannot comment on the particular matter that he raises. All I would say is that there are two issues here. One is the Planning Inspectorate, which, as noble Lords will know, is independent. The planning inspector makes a decision on behalf of the Secretary of State, but he or she takes that decision in the light of his or her own views. The protection of areas of a special nature is covered by the national planning policy framework and the expectation is that they will be protected.

Libya

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

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

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords—

[Lord Desai]

My Lords—

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we have not yet heard from a Conservative Peer. We have plenty of time.

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, the noble Lord has made it clear that there have been very few casualties from NATO’s operations, and that is to be enormously welcomed. Does he accept nevertheless that when it comes to assessing the activities overall, the number of civilians who have died on both sides—whether from rebel forces moving forward or from Gaddafi’s forces trying to defend—must be considerable, and it would be appropriate at some point in time for an estimate to be made of what those figures are?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I would not want the House to think that we were minimising the reporting of the number of casualties on the Libyan side. The wording that both the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and I have used is that there have been relatively few casualties compared to many other conflicts of this kind. In fact, the UK Government through DfID are now providing urgent humanitarian support into Tripoli, including medical help, food and other basic supplies. A key component of that is to provide surgical teams and medicines for the treatment of up to 5,000 war-wounded patients and to boost local medical staff’s expertise in war surgery techniques.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper to refer this Bill to the Examiners to consider whether it is hybrid. This point arises before we move to Second Reading.

I should say that my noble friend Lady Royall, the shadow Leader of the House, gave notice of this point to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, last Monday, when she sent him the advice of leading counsel on which we rely. That advice has been placed in the Library since Friday of last week. My noble friend Lady Royall suggested that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, refer the matter to the Examiners straightaway. If the Examiners say no to hybridity, there will be no delay. If, however, they conclude that the Bill is hybrid, the consequences could be worked on as soon as possible to ensure a transparent process within the Lords’ Standing Order to select exemptions to this new Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, did not reply but sent my noble friend Lady Royall by return a letter that he had received from the Clerk of Public and Private Bills in this House saying that he considered that the Bill was not prima facie hybrid on the basis that it engaged no private interests. It is our case that the Bill is hybrid.

Before I come to that argument, perhaps I may set out the consequences of such a reference today. Referring the Bill to the Examiners, which is what the Motion seeks, would result in the Examiners seeking argument from those who say the Bill is hybrid and those who say that it is not. As experts and without political bias, they would then determine whether it is hybrid. If they conclude that the Bill is hybrid, the Standing Orders of this House require that the procedures for private Bills have to be followed in part. Those include the setting up of a Select Committee of this House to hear argument and evidence called by those whom the Committee allow to petition it on the issue of whether there should be any other exceptions to the new rules apart from Shetland and Orkney and the Western Isles. The matter of exceptions would then be decided by a fair evidence-based process where the reasoning was transparent for all to see, not by what appears to be the fiat of the Government without explanation.

The Bill is divided into two main parts. Part 1 provides for a change to our electoral system from first past the post to an alternative vote system and it also provides for a referendum on whether to introduce such a system. If the vote is passed in the referendum, the Minister will be obliged by the terms of the Bill to introduce the alternative vote system. Part 2 introduces a whole new method for fixing the boundaries of constituencies. Instead of it being a matter of judgment for the Boundary Commission as to the most expedient place for the boundaries, taking into account geographical and other community factors, county and ward boundaries and the likely number of constituencies in a constituency, under the new Bill the role of the Boundary Commission will be primarily to ensure that every constituency under 13,000 square kilometres contains the same number of constituents plus or minus 5 per cent. Constituency boundaries will be allowed to pass through county and ward boundaries. Numbers will be all.

The consequence of such an approach is certain to be, for example, that the Isle of Wight will be divided into two and the constituency of one of the Isle of Wight’s MPs will be joined to the mainland. Constituencies will frequently cross county boundaries. There is bound to be at least one constituency that crosses the boundary between Devon and Cornwall. The two constituencies that are to be excluded from this approach are the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland. The relevant provision reads:

“Preserved constituencies … There shall continue to be … a constituency named Orkney and Shetland, comprising the areas of the Orkney Islands Council and the Shetland Islands Council”,

and,

“a constituency named Na h-Eileanan an Iar, comprising the area of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar”.

The Explanatory Notes may be helpful to some Members of the House:

“Rule 6 provides for the two Scottish island constituencies of Na h-Eileanan an Iar (the Western Isles) and Orkney and Shetland to be preserved, and for the electorates of those two constituencies to be removed from the UK electorate and the Scottish electorate for the purposes of calculating the UK electoral quota”.

The Bill excludes those two constituencies from the effect of the new approach. Note that this is not an exception of the normal sort where, for example, no constituency can be above 13,000 square kilometres, which applies to the whole country; this is just two constituencies being taken out of the Bill. We support an approach that makes constituencies more equal in size, but we recognise that there should be a proper and transparent basis for determining which communities should be kept out of the Bill. The justification for the two exceptions was given by a Mr Harper, a junior Minister, who said:

“These constituencies have small populations and are not easily reached from the mainland. They have already been recognised either in legislation or in practice in previous boundary reviews as justifying particular treatment. We have concluded therefore that exceptions for these areas are justified by their particular geography”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/7/10; col. 1071W.]

To that answer, I say the following: first, there are many other constituencies with just as small populations that are not being preserved and no explanation is given for their exclusion; secondly, the Western Isles have never been so recognised before in legislation; thirdly, remoteness applies just as much to the many isles of Argyllshire as it does to these two islands; fourthly, geography could be applied to justify communities such as Anglesey or the Isle of Wight being excluded. No consistent basis is being advanced.

Is the Bill hybrid? The House of Lords Companion to the Standing Orders defines hybrid Bills as:

“public bills which are considered to affect specific private or local interests, in a manner different from the private or local interests of other persons or bodies of the same class, thus attracting the provisions of the Standing Orders applicable to private business”.

Is the Bill hybrid? I submit that it is. The easiest definition of hybridity comes from the Speaker in another place in 1988 in rejecting a claim to hybridity in respect of the Education Reform Bill that was passed in 1988. He said:

“In considering the question of hybridity, I have to look at the terms of the Bill. Provided that the formula or description used in the Bill deals with a category or class which is relevant to the purposes of the Bill and the Bill does not expressly specify or single out an individual or corporation within the category for different treatment, the Bill is not hybrid”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/87; col. 770.]

This Bill does precisely what the Speaker said in 1988; it singles out two constituencies that are not to be subject to a formula or description laid down in the Bill. Instead, they are singled out for special treatment.

[Lord Naseby]

Can the noble and learned Lord inform the House what exactly has changed since the Bill left the other place? The challenge of hybridity took place in another place and the Speaker was not called upon to rule. All that I can say to the noble and learned Lord is that, in the five years when I had the privilege of being Chairman of Ways and Means, there was never a single instance in which the upper House challenged the lower House on hybridity.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

No ruling has been given on hybridity by the other place and I would strongly urge this House not to regard itself as bound by the other place, which looks at constitutional issues in an entirely different way from us. The matter was never considered by the House of Commons. If this House were to say, “Once the House of Commons has not considered it, we are not to consider it”, that would be a fundamental abdication of our position.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, I have a pretty cynical view of this debate, not least the word “reform”, which we all know is not what it is about. It is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has said, about abolition or—to put it in fairly crude parlance—butchery. It is not about democracy; it is, frankly, about expediency, power, short-termism and control. I am sorry to say this, but I have been in politics, in marginal seats, for long enough to know a stitch-up when I see one. This is a blatant piece of gerrymandering. Let the Back-Benchers talk among themselves for hours, probably beyond midnight. In the mean time, the Government have their own committee that will exclude the Cross-Benchers and Back-Benchers, and in the end they will force through a Bill.

I have news for the Government; first, they should listen to, and I hope study, the short, poignant speech of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. If they do not, that is a large block vote to put on the other side. They should listen to their own Back-Benchers who do not like gerrymandering. Many of us are very devoted democrats. I draw the attention of my noble friend on the Front Bench particularly to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, which for many of us summarised what this is all about.

We do not believe that the voice of the House needs to be better heard. I had a look at the coverage of the Terrorism Bill. Your Lordships' House, or any parliament anywhere, could not have had better coverage than we received for what we did on that Bill. Therefore, I do not think there is any deficiency there or in the debates we had on trial by jury. There are other examples.

Those of us who have come from another place frankly do not want to see Members of Parliament challenged by senators, Members of the new House of Lords, or whatever they may be called. In addition, elected Members of Parliament do not like the list system one little bit. I think all of us recognise that some reforms are needed, but how cynical it is that the relevant figure has already increased by 56. The figures quoted in the press—I am not sure whether it can be believed or not—vary from another 100 on top of the 56 to as many as 150. Then our leaders say that there are now too many people coming to your Lordships' House. I view that as a rather cynical approach.

I have two major historical interests in democracy and your Lordships’ House. First, on your Lordships' House, I have a great interest in Cromwell. Even he had the sense to bring back the House of Lords. We should learn from history and not make the mistake that he made. Secondly, I had the privilege of working in India and know what it stands for. I looked up Mahatma Gandhi’s views on democracy. He said:

“Democracy, disciplined and enlightened, is the finest thing in the world”.

But, he added:

“The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without”.

This House, and particularly those who lead it, could well reflect on those words.

I am all for reform of this wonderful, passionate, unelected House, which respects its role and its relationship with the other place. However, I do not accept the need for an elected Chamber. If there is an attempt to impose it, I fervently believe that there should be a referendum of the people of the United Kingdom. No Government should try to change our precious constitution without the explicit will of the people in a referendum, for that is true modernisation.