EU: Financial and Monetary Co-ordination

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I would have called the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. However, this happens from time to time as we approach 30 minutes. We have now reached 30 minutes and ought to move on to the next business.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Countess of Mar]

May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is normal to make a speech like this on the Question whether the Bill do now pass?

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

It is unusual, but it is in order. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is about to wrap up his remarks, but he was being constructive and helpful.

[Lord Eatwell]

I am indeed. It is appropriate to thank people, when a Bill has gone through in this co-operative manner, for what has been achieved.

I know that the Government think that this side of the House has taken a somewhat belt-and-braces approach to the independence of the OBR; I am sure that Sir Humphrey, or perhaps Sir Nicholas, does. However, it can do no harm to the OBR’s reputation to have a belt in place when the braces fail.

It is the Government’s responsibility now to ensure that this important experiment in economic governance is a success. We on this side wish Mr Chote and his team well.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, we have agreed to extra time for this Statement, but perhaps we should, as a matter of courtesy, give priority to those noble Lords who sat through the reading of the Statement, rather than those wandering in five minutes before the end.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I take it that the Government themselves acknowledge that the recovery is fragile and that, by reducing planned public expenditure and increasing taxes so drastically—the Statement rather skated over the taxes aspect—thereby taking demand out of the economy, they are taking some risk, at the very least, with that fragile recovery. In that context, was it sensible to announce the reduction of public sector jobs by 490,000 before publishing the detailed departmental plans from which, presumably, that figure was derived? As a result, not merely the holders of the 490,000 jobs but the whole public sector—millions of people and their families—will be deeply anxious about their future and will be reducing, perhaps drastically, household expenditure. That will take more demand out of the economy quite unnecessarily in a context where we require the reverse of that.