Strathclyde Review

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, this Statement appeals to the very best, indeed, the noblest instincts of this House. Twelve months on, the Government have listened very carefully to the voices around the House and decided that the best way forward is the way the House always proceeds: by agreement, at a pace and with perspective.

That is why I very much welcome what the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said. She reminded us of the statistic that Governments have been defeated at least five times in 70 years. Frankly, if that is the pace that will continue, neither this nor a future Government will have very much to concern themselves with. It is that commitment, which would been very difficult to receive a year ago, which has made so much difference today.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised a question about secondary legislation. Perhaps I may finish with one question on that. It is true that the guidelines on when secondary legislation and primary legislation are to be used are vague or, indeed, opaque. I very much urge the Government to work with the parliamentary draftsmen and make public through departments when it is most desirable to use secondary legislation. Then we can avoid these sorts of issues in future.

If my report has been any part of bringing us to this good solution, I am delighted.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I once again thank my noble friend for all his work in this area. In response to his question, I am very happy to look at the comments he made.

Government and Parliament

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, this is an excellent Motion to debate and I am delighted that the noble Baroness has brought it forward. It is also an excellent time to have the debate. A year on into a Conservative Government and a new Parliament, with four years to go, it is an opportunity for us to consider and reflect on how Parliament and the Executive operate and on the quality of legislation. In raising these important issues, the Leader of the Opposition has fulfilled her constitutional duty. During the course of her speech, I could not help thinking how much I agreed with her and how I could have made a similar speech from where she is sitting and from where my noble friend the Leader of the House is sitting, too, because these are universal ideals.

I do not detect a concerted or co-ordinated attempt by this Government to circumvent scrutiny by either House of Parliament and there is no evidence to say that there is. However, we should take seriously the natural instincts of all Governments to make their lives a little easier. You do not have to look back far in history to know that the Government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, under the guise of modernisation, brought in deferred Divisions, sofa government to avoid Cabinet government, and guillotines as a matter of course. This was all in order to make the life of the Government a little easier.

Of course we should have more thought-through policy before it comes to Parliament and we should demand better drafted and more understandable Bills. I have still not got to the bottom of why Bills drafted today are so much more complicated than they were 20 or 30 years ago.

Of course Governments can ask for—and should be given—order-making powers for all the reasons that we understand, but they should be clearly expressed and, where possible, published in draft. I would be in favour, if one were proposed, of a committee to look at the drafting of legislation and perhaps take evidence from the First Parliamentary Counsel on the department in question’s resources, its drafting guidelines and so on. I hope the Government would support that.

The noble Baroness raised the issue of what happened towards the end of the last Session of Parliament. At one point, with a few weeks to go, it looked as if we were heading for a great legislative car crash. However, the reverse happened—there was wisdom. This not only requires sensible Ministers but a sensible Opposition to reach a compromise. If, however, we have to agree to disagree, we should do so and not push it any further. That is a proper constitutional role for the House of Lords which is well understood. Yet, in the last Session of Parliament the Government were defeated in more than half the votes—53%—in this House. That just sounds like too many, and I hope the noble Baroness will take her Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip to one side and suggest to them that that was overkill. With that sort of record it is hardly surprising that, as the noble Baroness asserts, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is thinking of stacking our Benches with more Conservative Peers. I suggest that they focus a little more on their votes rather than the broad-brush approach which they have tried so far.

[Lord Richard (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He will remember from the position he then held and I remember from the position I then held that during the whole of the period of the Labour Government from 1997 onwards, not only did we never have a majority in this House, but for most of that time we were not even the largest single party here; his party was. The voting records of those Parliaments show that the average number of defeats of Labour Governments was somewhere between 40% and 50%, which is not very different from what he is complaining about now. I did not hear him complaining about the position then.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord made that last point because when he looks back at the figures, I think he will find that the average during that period when we were in opposition was around a third. No doubt the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be able to put me right if I am wrong on that.

The other argument that is made by many is that we have been faced with a tsunami of secondary legislation, and yet the figures which have just been published demonstrate that in the last Session of Parliament we had the fewest statutory instruments since the 1996-97 Session. Last October I was invited to conduct a review. Some thought that I was reforming the whole of the House of Lords—I hasten to add that I was not. Some thought that I was recasting all secondary legislation, but I was not. I was dealing with a small point about how we agree statutory instruments in this House, and seeing if there is a better way. Since then there have been four parliamentary committees, three in this House and one in another place, all pretty much castigating my humble suggestion but none of them coming up with an alternative. That said to me that they had misunderstood the fundamental problem we face in how to agree statutory instruments in this House, and that they had misunderstood the uncertainty of the status quo.

As practically every child knows, the House of Lords is here to revise and to scrutinise, but it does not block legislation. If it does, there are the Parliament Acts which give the House of Commons the power to overrule this House. This does not apply to statutory instruments. Why not? The first question is this: should we retain our veto? I answered no.

As far back as 1968, my noble friend Lord Carrington asserted that we should not defeat statutory instruments. In his royal commission my noble friend Lord Wakeham built on that theme, and again, I believe that he did so by giving us a little more flesh on the bones of my Motion. What I took into account were those who said that the regret Motions we now have are not enough. Far from clipping the wings of the House of Lords, my suggestion was for a new power and a new ability for this House to demand that a Minister in the House of Commons come to the Dispatch Box, explain why the House of Lords is wrong, and if the House of Commons then reaffirms the original order, we should step back. I still think that that is the right way forward.

I hope the Government will respond shortly not just to my report but to the others. There may be room for an agreement with the Leader of the Opposition, but if there cannot be an agreement, I can see that in order to clarify the situation, there will have to be legislation. I am sure that I am not alone in regretting that.

Strathclyde Review

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Strathclyde]

That this House takes note of Command Paper Cm 9177, Secondary legislation and the primacy of the House of Commons.

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I am flabbergasted by the number of Peers who have put their names down to speak this afternoon. For a moment I wondered whether they realised that we are discussing statutory instruments, then I thought that perhaps I had been more controversial in my review than I had originally intended. I think, however, that it is a sign of the importance that we attach as a House to the way that we pass legislation and to the powers that we have. All are, therefore, extremely welcome, perhaps none more so than the two maiden speeches that we will hear this afternoon, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Roulanish. The noble Lord, Lord Darling, brings recent and genuine breadth of experience and knowledge from the House of Commons, which I know will be extremely valuable to this House. Another reason I welcome his words is that I think he was probably the Minister responsible for the introduction of tax credits in the first place. So long as he can keep his words uncontroversial, it will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

This debate goes to the heart of what we believe we are here to do—what we are for. It goes to the heart of the relationship between this House and the House of Commons and how we conduct our affairs, particularly given that the Government are, and always are, a minority in this House. There has been nothing new in that since 1945. I have heard some people say that the Government have overreacted in all this because it is the first time that a Conservative Government find themselves not in control of the House of Lords. I have some sympathy with why people say that. I do not think that it was always quite as easy as some people imagine when we had about 400 Peers in the House of Lords, mainly because they did not always turn up, but I understand the point that is being made. The answer to that, of course, is that the Government need to learn lessons about how to handle the House of Lords. However, it is also the first time that the Labour Party finds itself in a position of power and authority as the Opposition in this House and, therefore, a great responsibility falls upon its shoulders.

I also presume no greater qualification than anybody else to be leading this debate, but between 1994 and 2013 I was either the Chief Whip or Leader in opposition and in government. Therefore, I had a rare view and a period of study of the theory and practice of how we deal with secondary legislation in this House, particularly how statutory instruments are dealt with, and of the various conventions that guided us during that period. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is not here, because it is what he might have said was a study in the emotional geography of the House, and in how it has changed over the last 20 years.

We need at least to understand and agree on the nature of this House. Without a government majority, it is a very strange beast. I was in opposition for 13 years, and there is always an obligation in opposition to know that there is often an opportunity—a requirement, in fact—to pull your punches: a self-denying ordinance. If not, the House can virtually always defeat the Government, and that way chaos lies and the patience of the House of Commons will be tried. You have only to look at the history of the 20th century. The House of Lords behaved foolishly in the run-up to the 1911 Parliament Act, and of course the 1949 second Parliament Act is a reminder of what happens when the Commons loses trust in the ability of the House of Lords to complement its work.

To avoid these problems, in the latter part of the 20th century we developed a whole series of practices that developed into conventions of the House, such as the one I contend existed on statutory instruments. There are others on reasonable time and, of course, the far better-known Salisbury/Addison convention on Second Reading amendments. I am delighted that one of the speakers this afternoon is none other than the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling. When he was in the House of Commons, he chaired a Joint Committee that did a comprehensive study about the conventions that govern the relationships between the two Houses.

[Noble Lords]

He was in the Lords.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Well, he had been in the House of Commons, my Lords, and therefore it would be fair to say that he had a pretty good view of the relationship from both sides of the argument. He was then a supporter of the Government; I am sure that he is still a supporter of the Labour Party. These things are important, because when you reread his work from 2006 you find that it is still fresh and interesting, and I urge noble Lords who are so interested to go back and have a look at it. Perhaps the Library could be persuaded to give a small extract from it on the conventions of the House of Lords to remind us.

Why conventions? Conventions require us to behave in ways that we would rather not. They require us to sign up to a series of obligations that constrain the way the powers of the House of Lords are used. To work, they need to be binding on those who agree them; and they are of course based on trust, because there is no legal basis for them.

My view is that the convention on statutory instruments has been fraying for some time, for a number of reasons. First, the House of Lords has changed substantially over the last 17 years. There is undoubtedly a new confidence in the House of Lords; I applaud that. There has been an influx of new Peers over many years. There has been a fundamental change from a more hereditary House to one that has been appointed, with people here on merit. On the other side of the equation, however, there has been a loss of collective memory and less understanding of the implications of what happens when we use our powers too aggressively. I tried to avoid that after 1999, when it should be remembered that nearly half the Conservative Party in the House of Lords was expelled by the Government. I do not want to give this Government any ideas, but it was quite effective at the time.

In 2000, I declared in a speech that the convention was now dead. I did so quite deliberately and pointedly, and we then went on to defeat the Government on some order to do with the London mayoral elections. Two things happened immediately afterwards. First, we agreed a process by which the offending order was put into legislation and, secondly, Lord Williams of Mostyn and I agreed that of course the convention should stay on and that it was not true that there was no need to continue the conventions from the old hereditary House into the new House that had been created after the 1999 Act. He understood, as a Leader of the House and leader of the Labour Party in this House, that it would help the House of Lords to work better to maintain this convention.

There is a similarity between that and what happened in 1968. Incidentally, one of the remarkable things about this House is that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who is going to speak in a few moments, was around in 1968 and voted on the Rhodesia orders, on which the House foolishly voted to vote down the orders to impose sanctions on Rhodesia. My noble friend Lord Carrington and Lord Shackleton, who were then the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House, agreed that there should be a convention that this should never happen again—and nor did it, until 2000. In the 1970s came the start of the Motions to Regret, which were a sensible way forward. However, that agreement of my noble friend Lord Carrington and Lord Shackleton was a sensible and pragmatic understanding between two parties. They accepted that the Lords may have the power to reject but that they should not use it, because they did not have the authority to do so.

In 2007, the super-casino orders were also lost in the House of Lords. There was no Conservative Whip but it was interesting that 15 Labour Peers voted against the Government and there was a dramatic last-minute intervention by the then most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. No more was heard of the super-casinos after that.

That brings us to tax credits, because what was so interesting about the votes that took place on them is that the House divided along entirely political lines. In fact, what was so unusual is that several senior Labour Peers voted to support the Government—not, I hasten to add, because they had any affection for what the Government were doing on tax credits but because they understood the constitutional implications of what was to take place and that a practice was going to change. In the Chamber itself, there was some confusion as to whether the delay Motions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Meacher, were in tune with the convention or broke it. At a stroke, there was then more than one interpretation of what the convention was; hence there has been a need for clarity and the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, invited me to conduct my review.

I should say at this point that I absolve completely, if any absolution is required, the two noble Baronesses in their Motions. I do not think for one moment that they were seeking to undermine the conventions that existed. In fact, they had rather cleverly and innovatively found a frame of words that technically did not break the convention. These were words that were neither fatal nor non-fatal; this is the cleverness that succeeded.

My view is that, in practice, whatever the technicalities, they proved fatal because they took the order hostage and would not pass it unless certain conditions were met. The noise from the opposition Benches exemplifies what has gone wrong, because if we cannot now agree what the convention is, we have to either re-establish it or find another way to try to get it right.

My review was greatly helped by an excellent team of officials from the Cabinet Office and a group of parliamentary advisers whose combined knowledge of Parliament and the passing of legislation is, I think, unparalleled. However, it was my review and my report, and I am entirely responsible for all the views held in it.

One issue that exercised us perhaps more than anything else was that of financial privilege. In my report, I discuss the old conventions between the two Houses on tax and supply, which go back to the 17th century—some argue to the 15th or the 14th century. Sometimes these things are not well understood these days. What is true is that financial privilege is very much a matter for another place, which, rightly, jealously guards its financial privilege. I have made recommendations that government and parliamentary authorities ought to discuss more, perhaps with the House of Commons Procedure Committee, exactly how to deal with financial privilege in future.

Of the three options that I have put forward, the first two are pretty self-explanatory. The first is to remove the House of Lords from debating and discussing statutory instruments, which I think would be a loss of scrutiny and an encouragement for the Government to use statutory instruments and secondary legislation even more. The second is somehow to rebuild the convention, but the convention can be rebuilt only if it comes from the House. Governments cannot impose conventions on the House. That is why I came to my third option, which is a genuine attempt to find a new procedure and give the House of Lords a new power, a very practical power that we have never had before. I also have to admit that there was nothing original in it. As part of my studies, I looked at previous debates and discussions. As early as 2001, in the great Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, he and his team of commissioners came up with a plan that looks remarkably similar to my option 3, and it has been echoed in other studies as well.

By having the ability to do what the House of Lords traditionally does so well, which is to ask the House of Commons to think again, we are doing what we have always done. To limit it to—if I may call it this—a ping without a pong, we are giving the House of Lords certain rights that it does not have at the moment. In other words, we have a conversation between the two Houses but the other House has the final say.

I should also like briefly to mention the scrutiny committees. One thing that became apparent very quickly was in what high regard the scrutiny committees of the House of Lords, chaired by my noble friends Lady Fookes and Lord Trefgarne, are held by government departments, Commons committees and outside commentators. There is no question in my mind that secondary legislation—statutory instruments—are an absolute requirement in the modern era, but it is very important that we have the right tools for scrutiny. We should question very strongly when framework Bills are put before us whether the requirements for ministerial powers are necessary.

Since the Statutory Instruments Act was passed in 1946, we have enjoyed unfettered powers to vote on secondary legislation. In this context, I asked myself these questions. First, is there a problem that now needs to be solved? I concluded that there was. Secondly, should the Lords retain this veto power? I concluded that the answer was no. Thirdly, is this the right time for a new power and a new procedure for the House of Lords to do what it does best? That is, to ask the House of Commons to think again, and the answer to that was yes. It is now up to your Lordships and the Government to decide not only whether these are the right questions but whether they are also the right answers to find a sustainable process that will serve the interest of Lords and Parliament alike over the next few years. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, opened this debate by posing three questions. First, he asked: is there a problem? I think that there is a problem, but not the one that he defined. Secondly, he asked: should we retain our veto? I am inclined to say that we should. Thirdly, he asked: was there scope for change? There is general agreement that there is scope for change, but his report is not a definitive answer.

I go back to the noble Lord’s first question on whether there is a problem. He quoted the events of 26 October in justification for the fact that there is a problem, yet he said today—I wrote down his words carefully—that the two noble Baronesses, my noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, cleverly found a form of words that did not break the convention. If they did not break the convention, why is the noble Lord quoting that as the case for the changes that he is suggesting? It makes it very puzzling—

[Lord Strathclyde]

I wonder if it would be worth clarifying that point. I completely stand by the words that the noble Baroness cited but they were in the context of saying that there was now more than one interpretation of what the convention actually was. There was the one propagated by the noble Baronesses while others, including me, regarded those Motions as being in practice fatal. Once you can no longer agree what the convention is then you have to have the kind of debate that we are now having.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

It was not the words of the Motions that were fatal but the political consequences that the Government were fearing, not least because their Members in another place then woke up to what these regulations were all about. The hype that we saw, which my noble friend Lady Smith mentioned, about the threats of extra Peers and the suspension of this House was more to do with the political consequences than the actual point about a convention being broken.

For several years, I was part of the business management team in the House of Commons. I was leader of the Commons and its Chief Whip; before that, I was the shadow leader of the House when Tony Newton was the leader of that House. One of the main problems that government business managers had—looking at what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said earlier, I think that it is the case on all sides—was in trying to keep Ministers realistic about what they could achieve in their legislation. They always wanted to do more and to have wide framework legislation. They always wanted to load the legislation so that a lot could be done by statutory instruments. There were mechanisms for dealing with that, but it was very difficult to contain Ministers at times.

We have to acknowledge that the whole process of using statutory instruments, while absolutely vital to the machinery of government, is or can be open to abuse. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that that is possibly the case with all Governments. I accept that there have been occasions when all Governments have pushed the limits further and further, but we are now in a new ball-game with the framework legislation that we get and in terms of the SIs. The example that the noble and learned Lord gave about the provisions in the Childcare Bill during the previous Session prove the point. The idea that you can make a criminal conviction through an SI is just outrageous and we should not even be contemplating it.

I think that we have a great deal of agreement this afternoon that we need change, but it is not a question of what changes need to affect this House. It is a question of what changes need to be implemented in Parliament as a whole to deal with the whole question of secondary legislation and how we scrutinise and hold the Government to account.

My noble friend Lady Smith reminded us of the difficulty in the House of Commons of getting Back-Benchers to serve on SI committees. It was and is a real problem, because people saw little mileage in it for themselves and very little point, because it is a very limited debate. Often, the problem was getting a quorum rather than being challenged on the issues thrown up. At the moment, we see minimal scrutiny in the House of Commons by government Back-Benchers who are told to keep quiet and opposition Back-Benchers who do not think that they will make any difference.

We have three problems here: framework Bills, the number of SIs—and, probably more importantly, their scope, which is much greater than it used to be—and the problem of lack of scrutiny in the House of Commons. When we are considering what the next stage should be, it should not be a simplistic Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has suggested; it should be a comprehensive look at this problem. We have had some interesting suggestions during this debate of a Joint Committee, with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, making some very pertinent points and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, talking about implications of financial privilege for SIs. I would say that most SIs have a financial implication. Are we to have a threshold or to say that we can never look at any of them?

There is general agreement on all sides of this House that this is a bigger problem than one of a convention that may or may not have been broken. Therefore, I urge the Government and the Leader of the House to think about not only what is convenient for this Government in the short-term but—I know that it is unlikely in the near future—what they may have to and want to do in opposition. Do not think about the short term, because that will not be good for Parliament as a whole. We have a big responsibility in this House to Parliament as a whole. That is the way that we should go forward in considering this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating and thoughtful debate. The contributions and the expertise that have been displayed in the past few minutes have been particularly helpful to your Lordships’ House.

I will refer briefly to two remarkable maiden speeches. My noble friend Lady Bowles brings not only professional expertise and experience to this House but particularly interesting experience from the European Parliament. The direction of travel there is to have more democratic control over secondary legislation while in this House this evening it looks as though we might be going in the opposite direction. That is a useful lesson for us. I suspect that the parliamentary experience and touch in the Treasury would never have let the noble Lord, Lord Darling, ride into this House and fall into the elephant trap that the present Chancellor fell into on 26 October. His expertise and experience will be welcome in this House, too.

If there has been a theme during the debate today, it is that this is not a new problem. It is complex, it is not simple—and to that extent we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde for trying to simplify it—but it is not new. Therefore, it is up to us to realise that there is no novel, simple one act that could suddenly transform the situation.

As a non-expert, I have at least enough humility to listen carefully to previous wisdom. With the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and my noble friend Lord McNally, I served on the Joint Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, so brilliantly steered in 2006 which produced the report on conventions at the UK Parliament. I read again last night some of the excellent evidence that was put before us on 20 June 2006, when we heard from three distinguished witnesses. This was their first key statement:

“The only inference to be drawn from these proposals is that the Government intends further restriction of the freedoms and powers of the House of Lords. We would start from precisely the opposite premise—the freedoms of both Houses should be upheld and, where possible, extended. We further disagree with the government’s view that ‘codification’ is necessary as a prelude to the reform of the House of Lords. Even if true, which it is not, it could never justify further weakening of Parliament”.

The delegation that produced that evidence included Mrs Theresa May MP, then shadow Leader of the Commons and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, then Opposition Chief Whip here. It was led by none other than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Members of your Lordships’ House may have guessed that the evidence they gave was given on behalf of the Conservative Opposition. Colleagues may also recall that the Joint Committee was set up by the previous Labour Government because Mr Jack Straw wanted to clip the wings of your Lordships’ House—is that not, too, familiar?—as my noble friend Lord McNally reminded us today.

The evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, continued powerfully:

“‘Codification’ could cause more problems than it solves … We therefore agree with the Government that it would be undesirable to legislate on the conventions and other relations between the two Houses. That would lead to judicial intervention in and resolution of parliamentary and political difficulties”.

I agreed then and I agree now, because there is a real danger that we could drift into justiciable decision-making, which would put us in a very awkward position.

This has been referred to during the debate today by a number of colleagues on all sides of the House, including the noble Lords, Lord Cunningham and Lord Higgins, from the committee, my noble friend Lady Thomas, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who spoke forcefully a few minutes ago, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and, most recently, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. That is a dangerous route for us to go down without thinking it through very carefully indeed—and I will come to how I think we should do that.

Those witnesses then turned to the specific subject with which we are engaged today. They said:

“The conventions on secondary legislation are equally well understood. We propose no alteration. We uphold the right of the Lords to reject secondary legislation, while considering its use should be exceptional in the extreme. However, there is an important balancing convention to this, namely that governments should not use their majority in the Commons to introduce skeleton Bills as a basis for introducing unamendable secondary legislation”.

There is nothing new under the sun. It has been said again today several times that we have skeleton Bills which have become more and more skeletal.

A reference was made earlier by, I think, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to the Childcare Bill. I draw the attention of the House to the work done on that Bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and on which I serve. It pointed out admirably that the Childcare Bill was not sufficiently well thought through to put before either House of Parliament. It was indeed so skeletal as not to be worth consideration by either House. Some time ago in the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to this issue, as did my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace. We believe that that is a major problem so far as the House’s consideration is concerned.

Having previously argued that the convention on secondary legislation was “dead”, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, came before the Joint Committee with a slightly modified view. He said:

“However, on many, many occasions the House of Lords has asserted its unfettered right to maintain its power to throw out secondary legislation; I think the custom and practice that has built up, in combination with the long-stop power in the House of Lords, works extremely well”.

He has changed his mind since then.

There was a good deal of support from other witnesses and in the Joint Committee for that approach. I shall quote from the committee’s report. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who has also spoken today,

“likewise argues against codifying a convention that the Lords do not reject SIs. He observes that:

(a) It is not agreed that there is any such convention;

(b) SIs do not normally involve ‘great issues of principle’, and any argument in Parliament is usually only about fitness for purpose;

(c) A rejected order can be re-laid;

(d) The power to reject supports the work of the SI Merits Committee;

(e) Power to reject orders under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill will be even more important than power to reject mainstream SIs”.

The work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House makes his case even more powerful; it is a critical part of our job and it is very effective in undertaking that responsibility.

As has already been quoted once or twice in the debate, the eventual recommendations of the Joint Committee are unequivocal and bear repetition. The committee states that,

“we conclude that the House of Lords should not regularly reject Statutory Instruments, but that in exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate for it to do so. This is consistent with past practice, and represents a convention recognised by the opposition parties. The Government appear to consider that any defeat of an SI by the Lords is a breach of convention. We disagree ... The Government’s argument that ‘it is for the Commons as a source of Ministers’ authority to withhold or grant their endorsement of Ministers’ actions’ is an argument against having a second chamber at all, and we reject it”.

That, like every other recommendation of the Cunningham committee, was not only debated in both Houses but unanimously and enthusiastically approved by both Houses.

It was also welcomed enthusiastically—unsurprisingly, since we had accepted so much of his evidence—by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I find it difficult, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones hinted earlier, to understand what precisely has happened to that noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The contrast between the evidence to the Joint Committee, written and oral, and what we have heard today and read in his report is so remarkable that it makes one slightly suspicious.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, perhaps I may clarify that to the noble Lord, because he has made quite a meal of it. I stand by every word I said until 25 October of last year. On 26 October, it all changed. That was when I got my review. As a result of that, I conducted my review and produced it for the debate today. The noble Lord can poke as much fun as he would like about what I said, but, as I have just said, I stand by every word of it.

[Lord Tyler]

I do not think that the House fully understands that, and I think that it has taken a more measured view of these issues. Perhaps I may say that it has been all across the House. It has been remarkable how much consensus there has been in the debate today. These issues clearly are inappropriately dealt with by an internal government review. These matters are of great importance to the whole of Parliament—both Houses.

The memorandum from the Hansard Society sent to Members today makes a very powerful case on this point. The society suggests an independent inquiry. But I have been arguing for some weeks that an evidence-taking, properly constituted and properly advised Joint Select Committee of Peers and MPs would carry even more authority. During this debate, I have lost count of how many Members, from all sides of the House, have supported the idea of a new Joint Select Committee. It would meet the requirements of so many Members who have contributed today. The noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Cunningham, and a number of other Members have said that that is the appropriate way for Parliament together to think through these issues. This is not us against the House of Commons. It is both Houses of Parliament having to think together about how we best operate in undertaking our responsibilities to hold the Executive to account. That is the proper, effective constitutional role of the two Houses.

If we pursue option 3—a powerful case was made for option 2—there would be all sorts of difficulties. Every Member who said that they are in favour of option 3 also said that there were difficulties. Where are we going to elucidate how we can deal with those difficulties? The only appropriate way to do so is of course in a Joint Committee. If there is to be any revision at all of the way in which the two Houses interrelate, modifying the agreed position set out in the 2006 Joint Committee report, there must be a new Joint Committee to take evidence to make new recommendations.

I hope that the Leader of the House, in responding to this debate, will specifically answer that point. All sides of the House have said that that is the appropriate way forward and it is the one thing on which there is clearly a consensus across the House. I trust that when evidence is given to that committee by, I hope, a “Strathclyde mark 2”, he will be as forthright and as protective of the proper role of your Lordships’ House as he was when he was “Strathclyde mark 1”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, what is so refreshing about the debate we have had today is that we have been discussing what we are here to do, what we are for and what the House of Lords is for. What a contrast that is with the years we spent discussing how to get here. At last we are discussing what we have to do in practice.

I shall make two short points. First, for me the most significant and interesting contribution was from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, which showed what a good thing it is to have properly qualified senior former members of the judiciary here—with due deference also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—and how wrong we were to throw out the Law Lords all those years ago.

Secondly, and perhaps more substantively, there has been an enormously wide range of views expressed in the debate. I wish the Government the best of luck in trying to bring all this together and come out with a coherent response. It will be difficult.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham heard something that I also heard. Although there were numerous disagreements, if we are going to change the way we debate this, the key area of disagreement is whether it should be by legislation or by agreement. I urge all those who are in favour of doing it by agreement to work within the House and with the Opposition and the Government to see if that agreement would work.

The noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, misunderstood what I wrote in my report—it is my fault because it was not clear. In my foreword, I talked about conventions, but conventions cannot be imposed by me, by the Government or by the Opposition. They can be reached only by agreement, by good will, by compromise and by joint objective. If that is the result we end up with, I will be the first to cheer.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 10.47 pm.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, it has not been a great few weeks for your Lordships’ House. There has been much commentary and debate in the press and the media in general, especially discussions on the growth of numbers in this House. This has been tied in with the Prime Minister’s Dissolution list, which was inevitably longer than a mid-Parliament list would have been. We should recognise that it also marked the end of the coalition, which is why the Liberal Democrats were so recognised with an increase in their number.

This debate is premised on numbers. I have been waiting to hear a definitive case for a reduction in numbers to be made, and there have been various suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, has just suggested a figure—450—that we should come down to. I recognise that there is a general dissatisfaction about the numbers in our House, which is reflected outside it, but I am not convinced that the case has been made, or sure how much that reduction should be. One reason is that we hear far more about the number of Peers who come in, rather than the numbers who leave for whatever reason. I would encourage my noble friend the Leader of the House to make known every quarter, perhaps by Written Statement, how many Peers have left and whether they have died, retired or taken leave of absence. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, said that we lose about 20 a year through death, and that the Leader of the House said that about 30 retired in the last 12 months. That is 50 altogether, which puts the Prime Minister’s list into a slightly different perspective.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am very happy to be corrected later on, perhaps by the Leader of the House.

More importantly, I am not sure that numbers have ever counted for much in the House of Lords. In every single Parliament between 1945 and 2001, Labour were in a small minority in the House, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. Yet, when in government they were always able to carry the Queen’s business—as did the Conservative Party—but perhaps more important than that, when in opposition they were extremely effective. In fact, I have always thought that the Labour Party was better in opposition in the House of Lords than in government.

One of the reasons for that is that we all recognise the limits of our power in the House of Lords. Yet, this century we have been testing the limits of that power. While we as a House might have become more relevant, and perhaps more political, I am not sure that we have become more powerful as a House, and nor should we. The House of Lords defeats the Government from time to time, but what is much more powerful than defeat is the strength of the argument that is deployed and the influence that is brought to bear, particularly if there is a sign of a rebellion from the party in government.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I recollect that during his time as Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships’ House, he and other Opposition parties defeated the Labour Government on, I think, 33% of all the votes. Is he now recanting from that?

[Lord Strathclyde]

When the noble Lord reads my words, he will see that I said that far more powerful than defeating the Government was the strength of the argument. I maintain that that was the case even when we defeated the Government when I was Leader of the Opposition.

As other noble Lords have said, what also counts is that this House should do what it is asked to do: holding the Executive to account; scrutinising and revising legislation; debating the great issues of the day and informing the Government and the people of our collective views; holding great committees of inquiry that take evidence; and thinking through the solutions to the difficult issues that face our country. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition indicated that that might not be complementing the work of the House of Commons, but that is exactly what my noble friend the Leader of the House meant when she said that we should complement the Commons. I very much welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is still in post. It is a great relief to us all that she was reconfirmed.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I can inform the noble Lord that I am elected by the Labour Peers, and whoever is leader of the Labour Party, they have me.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we are all very happy that that was the case.

I shall comment briefly on the various options of which there are only three. One is term limits, which the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, mentioned. I shall have to read what he said to understand some of his nuances. Others mentioned a term of 15 years. I wonder whether someone who was in mid-career, aged 45 or 50, would really welcome doing just 15 years in the House of Lords, or say a Conservative Peer arriving in 1996 and being flung out in 2011 just as we got into government.

Secondly, age limits sound simple and fair, but as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, realised, we might lose rather more than we gain. He has therefore invented a sort of life after death: a reverse euthanasia for Peers over 80. Yet, following me, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield will be making his valedictory speech. Of course we would hear a lot more of those from over-80 year olds if we adopted the noble Lord’s scheme.

The third option is a straightforward reduction—say, 20% of the House—like that of the hereditary Peers in 1999. This probably has the greatest merit, but it is not without its flaws. First, it is an immensely unpleasant process: I have been through it and can attest to that. Secondly, it creates what I may call the Pearson problem: the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is part of a smaller party, as are the Greens and the Welsh nationalists—I wish there were Scottish nationalists here as well—and I think they should be excluded from any process of reduction because there are so few of them.

I also echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said: that any solution to this must recognise that we represent so many different parts of the United Kingdom and that the constitutional settlement is currently in flow. Nothing will happen unless the leaders of the parties and the Convenor of the Cross Benches can come to an agreement. I strongly urge that they work with the noble and learned Lord to see whether there is any consensus for coming forward with what I hope will be a non-legislative solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to every speech and after such a fascinating debate I am not sure that I have much new to offer, but I will try.

These last few months have been cruel for the reputation of our House. Much of the criticism is unfair, yet we live in a world that takes great delight in toppling gilded towers. Our gilded tower is one of the most spectacular. It is also the easiest of targets. A lot of repair work can be done, and surprisingly quickly, if we are able to engage in information and rebuttal, to explain the work we do and to correct some of the more grotesque distortions that have taken hold. An information and rebuttal post could be set up now, within weeks. We could move very quickly.

The public deserve to know the facts, not just the fiction. Take our dining habits. It is widely believed that we dine on lobster and caviar; I am not sure what I will dine on this evening but it certainly will not be that. Most of us, I suspect, have not even eaten lobster here. Being a good working-class lad, the closest I got to caviar is a taramosalata salad in the River canteen. I must confess to buying a little champagne, but like so many noble Lords, almost every drop of it has been to raise money for charity. The delusions and distortions that we suffer are appalling. They may pass, but I rather doubt it. Some of us, a few, have played into their hands.

So how can we fix the damage? First, by re-emphasising that we are a House of duties, not privileges. We Peers are here to serve this House and the country beyond; we must never make it seem as though this House is here to serve us. Secondly, none of us deserves a job for life by right; there comes a point where enough is enough—move on.

In the mean time, we must focus remorselessly on the quality of the work that we do. That work is vital. I like to think of this House as a great parliamentary composting machine, improving and making more fragrant whatever—I was about to say “rubbish”—is thrown at us from the other place. My Lords, we should take pride in being parliamentary worms or rather glow-worms.

How do we translate all this into specific proposals? With fixed terms, age limits, enforced retirements? They have the merit of simplicity, but suffer the tragic weakness of not finding the pleasure of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. Perhaps we should go back to finding the more traditional methods of finding constitutional compromise: Strathclyde and Steel in a locked room—winner takes all. It is a thought.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I would win.

[Lord Dobbs]

What is fundamental is that the size of this House should be restrained. It may not be a silver bullet, to use the phrase of my noble friend the Leader, but through restraint so much more would follow. We cannot carry on growing like a pig’s bladder. A House without limits is a House of confused qualities, with too many dusty corners for those who should not be here at all. So, numbers reduced by internal selection following the precedent set by hereditaries and others—as set out so ably by my noble friend Lord Cormack—a House no larger than the Commons would have the huge benefit of focusing public attention both on the job we do and who is best to do it.

None of this is easy. Sometimes in politics you have to do rather a lot to achieve just a little, and that is where we find ourselves today. Perhaps I am wrong about all this—I am often accused of turning everything into a drama—but this House is a House of service or it is nothing. If we cannot move forward with some urgency, we may find ourselves being dragged behind a crowd of flat-earthers, who do not understand public duty and who want to sweep this House away lock, stock and biscuit barrel. In that we will have lost a thing not only of great—

House of Lords

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I am here entirely out of curiosity. When I saw that this Motion was on the Order Paper, while I understood the fundamental motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to see a reduction in the number of Peers, I, for one, had absolutely no idea how he was going to achieve it nor what he was going to suggest—nor, having suggested those things, by which means the House could come to a collective decision. I entirely agree with him that a self-regulating House should have the means to look at its Standing Orders to see whether it is being brought into disrepute or disorder. He and I have been Members of this House for a long time. Indeed, he and I sparred across the Dispatch Box as far back as the 1980s, which just goes to show that we are all getting a lot older, as we are half way through the second decade of the 21st century.

I have to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on getting this Motion down on the Order Paper—and in prime time. This leads me to believe that the Government have given the go-ahead for such a discussion to take place, not just as a debate in the House of Lords but for a committee to look at this. Why is that? I suppose it is because they, like me, have heard over the course of the last two or three years a rising cacophony of Members of the House who are concerned about the ever increasing number of Peers. The reason is that throughout history very few new Peers have been made up, but since 1998, and the removal of the hereditary peerage, that number has of course increased. The noble Lord and I, and many others in this House, were Members of a House of Lords that had a far larger membership than we have today but a far lower daily attendance, because those Peers did not feel the same burden of obligation that Peers feel today and were at least prepared to come in less often than they do today.

What I have not yet ascertained—it may come out in the course of today’s debate—is what the problem is that we are trying to solve. If we have a problem of too many people, what should we do about it and, indeed, what could we do? Not so long ago, I supported a proposal by this Government to reduce the size of the House to 450 by election. That proposal was welcomed in the House of Commons with a huge majority at Second Reading, but then the parties of government and opposition could not agree on how much debating time it should have in the Commons and the proposal ultimately fell. We have an opportunity now, instead of having solutions imposed on us, to discuss again the kind of changes that we would like to see.

I do not believe that I am alone in saying that it is an enormous privilege to be a Member of this House. In the years that I have been a Member here, people have come in via all sorts of methods: some, like me, thanks to an accident of birth as a former hereditary Peer directly elected by my colleagues. There are the Bishops, who are appointed; the Cross-Benchers, who come through the Appointments Commission; and the party Peers, who come here through their leaders. We come here in different ways and we all have our own role to play in the way that the House operates. It is a voluntary and part-time House, and I like to think that we do the job that we are asked to—revision, scrutiny and general debate—extremely effectively.

I have one regret: the groan that rises in this House when there is talk of a new list. Not least, it is deeply insulting to new Peers who join this House; we need a new life-blood of Peers coming in. We will all take a view on what that quantum should be, but without new Peers we will become the old folks’ home that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has warned us against.

Although there has been higher daily attendance, I understand that there are 34 more Members today than there were in 2007 in the four main groupings in the House of Lords. I do not know if my noble friend the Leader of the House will be able to confirm that when she winds up, but it does not strike me that the numbers have grown completely out of hand.

It strikes me that the whole point of the House of Lords is that it is there to throw up a hand of protest from time to time to the elected Government represented in the House of Commons, and we manage to do that. We should do so by having a broad balance of numbers between the two main parties of government. There should be no majority for the Government in this House, and there is not and has not been. The House of Lords itself works out how best to regulate the balance between the unelected but largely authoritative and influential House of Lords and the directly elected democratic representatives who sit in the House of Commons. So I urge a certain amount of caution in going down this route.

However, if we identify during the course of this debate that there is a problem and the Government and, indeed, the House and its committees wish to take it up, I would hope that the clerks would be prevailed upon to draw up an options paper, on which they could consult throughout the House, on the different ways of regulating it. One option is to have some sort of voluntary cap; I like the idea of not using primary legislation. I am not sure that I favour any of these suggestions, by the way, but at least that is one.

Another option is term limits: every Peer who comes in gets 15 or 20 years, and at the end of that period—perhaps at the end of the Session, or at the end of the Parliament in which their time is up—they leave. However, I can think of many Peers who are just coming into their prime after 15 years. Certainly, if you had been appointed a Conservative Peer in 1997 or 1998, you would have been out by now, just as we were coming into our prime in government. It is a blunt instrument.

The noble Lord made a spirited defence of age in your Lordships’ House, or rather he tried to imply that an age limit would be a bad idea, yet it is the first solution that most people reach for. There is an age limit in so many different walks of life, so why not in the House of Lords? Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I am nervous of this. In an era when politicians in the House of Commons are getting ever younger and the population is getting ever older, having a repository of age in this House is not necessarily a bad thing.

I did not follow the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, quite as keenly as my noble friend Lord Forsyth, but it struck me, exactly as it struck my noble friend, that a proposal that guaranteed a set amount of what the noble Lord called “active Peers” would simply encourage people to become even more active, and that is not in the best interests of the reputation of this House. I would almost like to hand out a prize—perhaps this is something the Lord Speaker could do at the end of each Session—for the most effective Peer who has not taken up the most time of the House of Lords and encourage effectiveness by that. I used to get a queue of Peers who would ask me, “How much do you think I need to do to be useful?”. The whole point about this House is that many people come with backgrounds outside the House so that what they do outside is almost as useful to this House and to the governance of this country as what they do inside it, and we should not forget that.

I have read other suggestions, such as that at the end of every Parliament there should be an automatic reduction of 10% in the size of the House, by ballot as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested. As one who has gone through a party ballot to reduce its number, I can tell the House that it is a quite a painful operation. While there are many volunteers to step back from the House and many who are bound to get in, there is a group in the middle who are not sure whether they will get in, and the noble Lord would find it more difficult that he perhaps thinks. Under that proposal, new Peers would need to get a bye in their first Parliament so that they would be guaranteed the first election free.

Of course, it is easy to divide this process up within the party groups, but the Cross Benches are a very different group which operate in an incredibly different way. I addressed the Cross Benches only once or twice, and I was struck by their breadth and depth. I think they would find it much more difficult than the political parties to get together in some sort of electoral college. Then we have the “others”. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is a member of the “others”. How would we deal with them? There are also new parties, such as UKIP, and the nationalists. There are not very many nationalists. There are no Scottish nationalists —I have said before that there should be—there are not very many Welsh nationalists, and there are the parties representing Ireland.

I am in favour of an options paper, if that is what this debate concludes, but it should be consulted on widely. We should tread warily. There is another change that has taken place. We have just introduced for the very first time the ability for Members of this House to retire permanently and statutorily to cut their links to the House of Lords. This is only a few months old. A number of Peers have already taken it. Should we not give Peers the opportunity to come forward and volunteer to retire before we come forward with what I am bound to say are quite difficult and complicated schemes whose effects will be unknown in the long term?

House of Lords: Procedures and Practices

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, it is always entertaining to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, and today was no exception. For most of the 10 minutes I was waiting for him to get to the point. The Question on the Order Paper asks whether the Leader of the House, or the Government, have any plans to re-examine the procedures and practices governing the arrangement of business in the House of Lords. It is not really up to the Government to do so. Ultimately, it is up to the House to decide whether those things should be done.

I take up two quick issues with the noble Lord. He made much of complaining of the rules that we have, such as the 30 minutes that we have for Starred Questions, but these decisions are not made by the Government or by the Opposition but are made and agreed by the House itself. From time to time, those issues are debated and discussed in full in the Procedure Committee and again on the Floor of the House.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

One of my admonitions was on interventions—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me this intervention. I have had inside information from the time when the noble Lord was Leader of the House. I have heard stories that recommendations were agreed before he arrived and that his arrival resulted in a complete change, not because of his strength of argument but maybe because of fear. That does not include just proceedings—he will know that that includes attendance allowances as well.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord is being unusually flattering of my reputation.

The noble Lord referred to aligning the sittings of this House with those of the House of Commons. Why does the noble Lord not go to his colleagues in the House of Commons and tell them that they should align their sittings with us? That would be a distinct improvement. But there is no need for us to sit at exactly the same time as the House of Commons. Sometimes the greatest possible national recognition of the House of Lords is when the House of Commons is not sitting—and you have only to look at some recent examples, such as when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, had his debate on assisted dying, to see that it was the House of Lords that ran the headlines. So that is a useful thing.

Of course, it is useful from time to time to have debates in this House on procedure. However, the noble Lord seems completely to misunderstand the role of the powerful and important Procedure Committee and how it works in practice. I am almost ashamed to admit it, but I was a member of the Procedure Committee from 1994 until 2013. For all those years I went along to every meeting. I probably sat longer in that committee than any person alive today. There was a movable feast of people who came and went, including Front-Benchers, Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers alike. The point is that it is open to any Peer to write to the Chairman of Committees, the Leader of the House or the Clerk for issues to be raised in the Procedure Committee—and they are.

I am entirely in favour of progress and improving how we work. The fact that we do get change demonstrates how effective it is. When the Procedure Committee comes to a decision, it has to be endorsed by the House. There have been many occasions when amendments have been proposed and sometimes even agreed when decisions have had to be taken back by the Chairman of Committees. That is part of the general debate that we have. The noble Lord does not like some of the rules and regulations that we have, but he has every right to propose a change.

I am not in favour of having yet another committee. Already in this Parliament we have had a Leader’s Group, which made some substantial changes—and that has happened over the course of the past few years. The noble Lord said that we had plenty of time, yet it was the Labour Party, when it was in Government, that put the automatic cut-off at 10 o’clock at night. When I first joined this House, Back-Benchers were able to go on and on and on into the night and into the small hours.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can have it both ways. He has accurately explained the fact that, ultimately, the control of procedure is with the House as a whole. Now he is saying that it is the Labour Party, which has never had more than 30% of the votes here, that has been imposing draconian rules. Which is it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

That was cleverly done, but what I meant was that it was a proposal by the then Labour Government that carried the day. I go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It was a decision of the House to limit the amount of time that we had available, and it is an experiment that worked well and it has now become permanent. Another was the introduction of Grand Committees. We have far more hours now to spend debating issues—and, unusually, compared with virtually any other legislative Assembly, every Member of this House has an absolute right to put any amendment down to any piece of legislation and must be replied to by a Member of the Government. That is an enormous strength, which is not shared by our colleagues next door.

What is the House of Lords for? We are here to revise, to scrutinise, to debate and to investigate. Actually, I think we do that job remarkably well. We should not put too much pressure on the role of the Government. Every aspect of the work that we do in this House is, ultimately, agreed through the usual channels. That is not always an easy relationship to manage, but in the end it is about the language of priorities between Government and Opposition.

As I have said before, I believe that it would be a great mistake to give new powers to a Speaker of the House of Lords. It would, first of all, be an admission that we were unable to rule ourselves—and you have only to look at the House of Commons to see what happens when you have a Speaker. If I may say so, with due respect to the noble Lord’s eminent career, it is very often former Members of the House of Commons who believe that this Chamber is a House of Commons 20 years older. It is not; it is an entirely different Chamber. Our procedures work extremely effectively and can be changed through the Procedure Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for giving us the opportunity to debate our procedures, but I really cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that this is a matter we should look at only once every 10 years when we have a Leader’s Group. It is precisely because I so strongly believe in the value of the work of the House of Lords that I want it to be seen to be done as effectively as possible.

It would be wrong to deny that improvements have been made since the Leader’s Group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, on which I had the honour to serve. We now make better use of Grand Committee, and have extra Select Committees on specific subjects, more time for QSDs and more pre-legislative scrutiny. All this is very welcome. However, the system does not work in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggested. I want to take just one case history to illustrate that, as I have only limited time.

The Goodlad group recommended that this House should give Back-Benchers the opportunity to propose subjects for debate, as happens in the House of Commons. That was considered by the Procedure Committee, which agreed that it should be put to the House in a neutral way because, as the noble Lord said, it is for the House to decide. The relevant Motion was tabled. There was no Whip on the government side but Members on the Government Front Bench made it absolutely clear to their Back-Benchers that they were opposed to the Motion going through. They did that by ensuring that the debate took place on a day when the government parties were heavily whipped. Noble Lords who were not in the Chamber received a message on their mobile phones, saying that their Lordships might like to know that the Government Front Bench did not wish to see the Motion go through. It was not a Whip but it was something pretty close to it. That was how the Motion was defeated in this House. I am afraid it is the case that improvements which are in the power of the House to make are often defeated by the Government Front Bench, often in cahoots with the Opposition Front Bench.

I know that an effective House of Lords is often regarded by the Executive as a thorough nuisance. Parliament is regarded by the Executive as a thorough nuisance. However, having spent my career in the Executive, I know very well that it would not be kept up to the mark unless Parliament did its job of holding it to account and making itself awkward to the Executive from time to time. Your Lordships’ House should always ask how we can do that job more effectively—not by obstructing the Government getting their measures through but ensuring that they work to high standards. One of the weaknesses of Governments in this country is that there is too much legislation of too low a standard.

Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords should be taking a stand on that. The House of Commons is often not in a position to do so but the House of Lords is, and it is for that reason that many of us have argued that there should be a committee to look at the standards of preparation of legislation and advise the House when legislation coming before it has not been properly prepared. Then we might be saved from legislation such as the absurd Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill—the SARAH Bill.

If there is one message that I would like to ask the Leader to take to her colleagues, it is that while they may regard the improvements in the effectiveness of Parliament, and in particular of your Lordships’ House, as a nuisance, they should take a longer-term view because we have a role in improving the Government’s performance; and those improvements are in their interests as well the country’s.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, concerning the noble Lord’s point about Back-Bench debates, I hope that he will recognise that today we have had three excellent debates, all led by Back-Benchers.

EU Council

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this may be a convenient moment to repeat the Statement that was made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister a few moments ago on the European Council. The Statement is as follows.

“I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathies to President Obama and the American people, following the desperately tragic shootings in Connecticut on Friday. Our hearts go out to the families and friends of all those involved.

Last week’s European Council discussed further economic and monetary integration for the eurozone. It endorsed new safeguards that will protect the interests of those countries outside the eurozone. It also reached new conclusions on our response to the crisis in Syria, and there were discussions on growth and defence. This was the seventh European Council of the year. It was in no way a landmark Council, so let me address these points briefly.

First, on the eurozone, the problems of the eurozone are driving heated discussions between its members and leading to potentially significant changes inside the European Union. There are calls from some for greater solidarity and burden-sharing, and from others insistence on tough rules for fiscal discipline. These arguments raise far-reaching questions of national sovereignty, and it is yet to be determined how far or fast the changes will go, but it seems likely that we will see a process of some further integration for members of the eurozone.

Britain will not join the single currency; nor will we join the deeper integration now being contemplated. But these changes driven by the eurozone will alter the European Union for all of us, so they need to be done in the right way. That should mean flexibility over how Europe develops to accommodate the interests of all member states: those inside the euro, those which might one day join and those, like Britain, which are outside and have no intention of joining.

It also means that as eurozone members make the changes they need, so we in the UK will have the ability to argue for the changes that we need in our relationship with a changing European Union to get the best possible deal for the British people. The banking union, elements of which were agreed last week, is a good example of this. A single currency needs a single system for supervising banks, so Britain supported the first steps that were agreed towards a banking union. But in return, we—and others—demanded proper safeguards for countries that stay outside the new arrangements. So the Council agreed a new voting system, which means that the eurozone cannot impose rules on the countries outside the euro area, like Britain, without our agreement. There is also an explicit clause that says that no action by the European Central Bank should directly or indirectly discriminate against those countries outside a banking union. This is vital for our financial services industry, which must continue to be able to provide financial products in any currency. The Bank of England and the ECB will have a statutory memorandum of understanding that will ensure that they work co-operatively and openly to supervise cross-border banks. These safeguards set an important new precedent in terms of giving rights to countries that choose to stay outside the euro.

In winning this argument we have demonstrated how a change necessary for the eurozone can lead to a change for countries outside the eurozone, which can help us to safeguard the things that matter to us in Britain, in particular the integrity of the single market. As the eurozone makes further changes, I will seek every opportunity to get the best deal for Britain and for the single market as a whole.

On growth and competitiveness, this year we have already secured a proper plan with dates and actions for completing the single market in services, energy and digital; a commitment to exempt small businesses from new regulation; the establishment of a European patent court with key offices in London, which will save businesses millions of pounds; a new free trade agreement with Singapore; and the launch of negotiations on a free trade agreement with Japan that could increase EU GDP by €43 billion a year. The conclusions from this Council have the additional benefit of referring to Commission plans to “scrap” some of its own,

“regulations that are no longer of use”.

On defence, we are clear that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence, and EU co-operation should avoid costly new bureaucracy and institution-building. We will never support a European army. The focus of the Council conclusions is entirely consistent with this, referring to practical co-operation to tackle conflict and instability in places such as Kosovo and the Horn of Africa. In addition, the conclusions welcome proposals to open up closed defence markets in Europe, which will be to Britain’s benefit.

I turn finally to Syria. As a result of Assad’s brutality, a humanitarian crisis is unfolding in Syria on our watch, with more than 40,000 dead and millions in need of urgent assistance as a hard winter approaches. There is a moral imperative to act, and Britain is doing so as the second largest donor in terms of humanitarian aid. But there is also a strategic imperative. Syria is attracting and empowering a new cohort of al-Qaeda-linked extremists. There is a growing risk of instability spreading to Syria’s neighbours and a risk of drawing regional powers into direct conflict, so we cannot go on as we are. The Council was clear, as Britain has been for many months, that Assad’s regime is illegitimate. It committed to work for a future for Syria that is democratic and inclusive, with full support for human rights and minorities. We will continue to encourage political transition from the top and to support the opposition, who are attempting to force a transition from below. This will include looking at the arms embargo. The conclusions make it clear that we must now explore all options to help the opposition and to enable greater support for the protection of civilians.

So, progress on Syria, our objective on banking union secured, and the principle established that changes in the eurozone require safeguards for those outside. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I join the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister in sending deepest condolences to President Obama and the people of the United States. The Connecticut shooting was an appalling tragedy, and all the families affected are in our thoughts as they cope with their loss and grief.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on the European Council given to the other place by the Prime Minister. I shall touch upon three main areas: Syria, banking union and the wider context of treaty change.

Let me associate these Benches with the concern expressed in the Statement about the ongoing loss of life in Syria. The international community must continue to work together to end these atrocities immediately and speak with one voice in favour of a transition to a new Government. The noble Lord mentioned the arms embargo while also noting that Syria is attracting,

“a new cohort of Al Qaeda-linked extremists”.

In that context, are the Government urging the EU to end its arms embargo or merely to amend its terms? Do the Government recognise the dangers inherent in this?

We welcome the agreement on the next steps on banking union. It is right for the European Central Bank to have a supervisory role in the eurozone. However, does the Leader agree that the most important issue is not who supervises which banks, but who takes responsibility for bailing out failing banks in the euro area? That is what will deliver the firewall that we need between bank and sovereign risk. Did the Government make the case for urgency on this matter at the Council?

It is good that progress was made to protect the integrity of the single market. Was there discussion at the Council of how the new system will cope in the event of changing circumstances; for example, if more countries join the banking union and, in particular, if EU members currently outside the eurozone join the banking union and the “out” group shrinks to three or four member states?

Beyond questions of banking, is not the real issue for Europe the failure to deliver a plan for growth? The Minister mentioned a list of disparate steps, but on a real comprehensive plan for growth, we saw no progress, just as we saw no progress on wider eurozone political and economic integration. All the Council did was set a timetable—June 2013—to set a timetable.

For some considerable time we have been promised a long-awaited speech on Europe by the Prime Minister. We are now told it is being delayed again—that is three times. First it was set for the Conservative Party’s autumn conference, but we understand the FCO intervened. Then it was set for before the EU budget negotiations and now we hear that he has delayed it again, this time until the new year. In the absence of the Prime Minister’s speech, will the Leader of the House answer three simple questions?

First, the Foreign Secretary has said about an in/out referendum,

“this proposition is the wrong question at the wrong time … It would create additional economic uncertainty in this country at a difficult economic time”.

We agree with the Foreign Secretary. Does the Conservative Party? Secondly, the Prime Minister said last week:

“I don’t want Britain to leave the European Union”.

We agree with the Prime Minister, but why does he let member after member of his Cabinet brief that they are open to leaving the EU, including most recently the Education Secretary? Thirdly, British business is deeply concerned that the drift in the noble Lord's party and the direction of its policy mean that we are sleepwalking towards exit. We share that deep concern. Do the Government? The repeated postponement of the Prime Minister’s speech catches the point about the Government—at least the Conservative part of the coalition—on Europe. They are caught between the national interest for staying in and the Conservative Party, so many of whom want out. Britain deserves better.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she said at the start of her speech, joining us—as I am sure the whole House does—in sending our deepest condolences after the horrors and tragedy that occurred in America. Our hearts must go out to these families and to the nation as a whole. As for the questions that the noble Baroness raised about Syria, particularly the arms embargo, I am glad to say that we think it is right to look at the arms embargo and seek to amend its terms. It is right to keep the embargo against the regime. We will see how matters unfold over the next few weeks and months, and join our colleagues and partners in the EU and beyond in making sure that we come to the right decisions on this question.

The key to the noble Baroness’s speech was what happened at the European Council, particularly on banking union and the future relationship between this Government and the EU. The most important aspect of the banking union is that there has been a big breakthrough: non-eurozone members will have a say on eurozone rules that could affect them. Before this council, many people said that we would not achieve that. As for the important question about changing circumstances, we have agreed that there should be a review of the decision rules when the number of non-participating members reaches four. That could be some time away. Subsequently we have ensured that this review will report to the European Council, where the decision about what to do next will be taken by consensus.

The noble Baroness asked what we were doing about growth. It will not be news to this House that all countries in Europe have immense fiscal challenges and we must focus on what can help best. We believe that some of the changes that we have effected over the past two and a half years, on international trade deals, deregulation and completing the single market are not designed just to help us here in Britain, but also the rest of Europe. There is good news on some of this; at least in the United Kingdom. There are more people working in the private sector than ever before and the number of those claiming the main out-of-work benefits has fallen by almost 200,000. That is all a step in the right direction.

The noble Baroness went on to ask three simple questions—she might have thought that they were simple, but they raise important issues for the future. On the question of an in/out referendum and what the Foreign Secretary has said, I do not think that any of that creates a great deal of uncertainty. It is an issue that is live in the country today. People are asking about it. I very much believe that neither option—in or out—is the right question to ask. Europe is in a state of flux. Enormous changes are going on as a result of the eurozone that will give us and people who think like us an opportunity to look ahead and gently to forge a Europe that will serve all the people of Europe in future.

The noble Baroness also most unfairly criticised the Prime Minister and the Government for not doing what British business wanted us to do. She felt that we are drifting towards the EU exit and that British business was uncomfortable with that. I do not accept either premise. We are not drifting to an exit from the EU; therefore, British business is not concerned about that. British business is concerned about increased regulation, centralisation and bureaucracy. Those are all things that we can agree on. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but when you talk to British businesses, those are the things that they are concerned about. They do not believe for one moment that we are about to leave the EU; and nor are we.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, can my noble friend tell us about the discussions on Syria and, in particular, whether the United Kingdom has changed its position on lifting the arms embargo and is thinking of starting to get involved in arming either side of the conflict, not least the new coalition?

Apropos the European Council conclusions, the Leader of the House told us that the Bank of England and the European Central Bank are to have a statutory memorandum of understanding detailing their relationship. Can he tell the House a little more about what that will contain in terms of its legal underpinnings and when that might come about?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, those are two useful questions. First, on Syria, we are all deeply concerned by the escalation of violence and its increasing impact on the wider region. We very much welcome the increased support for the national coalition following the Friends of Syria meeting in Marrakech on 12 December 2012, and we are working with others in the international community, including within the EU, to seek an end to the violence and a political solution to the crisis. On sanctions, we have led the way in introducing EU measures against the Syrian regime. The latest round, the 19th, was adopted on 15 October, and we successfully negotiated a three-month rollover of the EU sanctions measures, including the arms embargo, last month. However, there is a fast-changing situation in Syria, and we need to keep it constantly under review.

My noble friend asked a second question about the banking union, the role of the relationship between the Bank of England and the ECB and, in particular, the role of the memorandum of understanding. I confirm to my noble friend that there is a statutory requirement in ECB regulations to have an MoU between the ECB and the Bank of England that secures co-ordination of supervision of cross-border banks and activities. There is no deadline for the MoU to be signed, but ideally it should be in place before the single supervisory mechanism kicks in, which should be by June 2014.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, through the Leader of the House, I thank the Financial Secretary, Mr Clark, for keeping my committee, which concerns itself with EU economic and financial affairs, alert to what was going on last week, both on the publication of our report of the emerging conclusions—published early to help the Government—and in the aftermath, when he reported back through me to Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell.

However, there are residual questions which we will test in the early months of next year, including with the Financial Secretary. With regard to the MoU, I would like the Leader of the House to take back to his colleagues a better and more profound scrutiny of the position the United Kingdom finds itself in, as countries begin to enter the European banking union, so that the protection of those who are the current “outs”—although many want to join the European banking union in a way that the United Kingdom does not—is not compromised by endorsing the supervisory board which reports to the governing body of the European Central Bank. That may imply, ultimately, treaty change. Would he be alert to that?

I have another question. The single market is the butt of what we are attempting to do in this country to protect the UK’s interest. Will he listen to the voices outside, and from British business, who say that financial services in particular, but the single market as a whole, are imperilled by our standing outside this close integration?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have yet to meet many businesspeople who think that it was wrong for us not to join the euro when it was created. Many businesses—in fact, all—that I meet are very keen on the single market and on how it operates. The Council has safeguarded the interest of British business and the City in particular. We believe that those safeguards are extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned the distinguished report from the committee that he chairs. It is a valuable and important report. There is a lot of it; it will require digesting by the Government. However, there are some useful pointers here. On the parts of his questions to do with treaty change, which I will not answer in detail now, these are exactly the kinds of issue we will need to consider before coming up with conclusions.

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, the monitoring and supervision of the large banks within the eurozone is coming in the so-called European banking union. It is obviously imperative that the group of 17 eurozone members cannot take over, in effect, the European Banking Authority which sets standards for the 27. In order to avoid that and to protect the EBA from risk, will the noble Lord comment on how watertight is the proposed requirement that there must be a simple majority of states, both in the eurozone and outside it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, asks a straight question: how watertight is the agreement on the requirement to have a majority? If I may mix my metaphors, the agreement that was struck in this council is absolutely rock hard. I do not think that I can put it more strongly than that.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, can the noble Lord go a bit further into banking unions? A banking union must contain two things. One is a supervisory regime, and it is clear what has been agreed there; it is perfectly satisfactory. However, it must also contain provisions for bank resolution. Can the noble Lord tell us in greater detail how this will work? In particular, if the ECB has to bail out an institution in the future to prevent a systemic threat, where will the requisite funds come from and what arrangements have already been made to ensure that those funds will be available on the day they are required?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is a good question but I will not be tempted to get into the details of this, because they have not been finally agreed within the eurozone. Final conclusions on that will need to be come to over the course of the next few months.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, first, I wonder whether the noble Lord has seen a report that the Bundesbank’s lawyers have found that the eurozone banking union lacks a sustainable legal basis and that there is a lack of clarity over the new safeguard powers. Is he able to comment on that? It is a very serious statement. Secondly, on page 4 the Prime Minister says:

“We will never support a European army”,

but we have an Air Force and a Navy as well, so presumably the “army” also includes those two forces. Perhaps the wording ought to be reconsidered in future. Thirdly, on Syria, I find it very worrying that the Government are urging that the arms embargo should be lifted by the European Union. Arms mean more deaths, surely. Will the Government not embark upon a peace process rather than a war process, given the support of some elements in Syria which are nasty, vicious and should not be supported?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, on the question of the Bundesbank and its lawyers’ view of the safeguards, the noble Lord has an advantage over me. I have not seen that but perhaps I could ask my officials to look into it and I will send him a letter. As far as I am concerned, when the Prime Minister said that Britain will not join a European army, he meant the European armed forces. Why do I say that with such confidence? Because I know that what he believes in is co-operation between our nations and their armed forces, which we have done very successfully, particularly with the French, and no doubt that will continue. On Syria, I agree with the noble Lord that it would be premature to lift the arms embargo but it is also right to keep it under review, and that is what we are doing.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, in the Statement there was a phrase to the effect that we will never be part of a European army, but was there a serious proposal at the summit to create such a European army? If not, why was it felt that that statement needed to be included?

[Lord Strathclyde]

No, my Lords, there was not a firm proposal that there should be a European army but there was an early discussion about a series of councils that will take place next year to discuss common defence and security policy. It is important for the Prime Minister to lay out his position as early as possible. After all, if he does not, that is how rumours start—such as the one propagated just now by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who also gave me an opportunity to put the record straight.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, will the noble Lord revert to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and his own exegesis of the sentence in the Council conclusions that says,

“the Council agreed a new voting system which means the Eurozone can not impose rules on the countries outside the Euro area”?

Does he agree that that sentence means that the Council agreed a new voting system for the EBA, not for the Council? Does he agree that that voting system depends on there being four non-members of the European single supervisory mechanism for its survival?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord has made an important clarification. I hope that nothing I have said has given the impression that I did not think that is what it meant—I am glad to have the noble Lord’s confirmation of that. It is absolutely right that those are the two locks. It is the first time that we have been able to get agreement that any changes require the agreement of a majority of those countries that are not in the eurozone.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, there were discussions at the Council on a potential free-trade agreement between the European Union and Japan. The noble Lord the Leader of the House will be aware that in parallel there are discussions between the United States and Japan. What, if anything, was said about the third part of the triangle—a free-trade agreement between the European Union and the United States?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is nothing I can add to what I have already said. However, being a believer in free trade. which I think the noble Lord is too, we should very much welcome the agreement between the EU and Japan. If the United States and Japan can make a similar agreement and commitment to free trade then that is a very good thing, and in the long term we should look to furthering free-trade agreements between the EU and the USA.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, the Statement brings us the surprising news that the Commission has promised to scrap some of its own regulations that are no longer of use. What is the anticipated timescale and volume of this exercise? Are the Government confident that Brussels is acting in good faith when it makes this promise? What legal mechanisms will function at the national level? Will the Government have any input into this process? Above all, will the Government keep noble Lords up to date as these regulations are scrapped?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is entirely right to raise this issue. The best way of keeping both the Government and the European Commission up to the mark is for the noble Lord, as I know he will, to constantly ask questions about how it is going. He asked about timing. I do not think there is a timescale for it. The important change is that in the Council’s conclusions there was an absolute recognition that there are some unnecessary regulations that are no longer needed and need to be scrapped. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, his friends and many others in the House may start proposing which ones they should be, in which case they should write directly to the Commission.

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

My Lords, the creation of an EU bank regulator, of which the UK will be independent, is certainly good news. Can my noble friend say something about the position of the UK operations of EU banks? Will there be pressure for them to be subsidiaries, rather than just operating branches, so that the Bank of England can more closely regulate them?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not have the immediate answer to that question. It raises all sorts of questions about the relationship between bank branches in the United Kingdom and their parent companies in the EU, most notably those headquartered in eurozone areas. I am not sure if there is a definite answer at this stage, but if there is I will let the noble Baroness know.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

My Lords, I was disappointed the Prime Minister chose to be so negative and parochial in his Statement today about what is actually quite a positive statement on the common security and defence policy in the conclusions of the European Council meeting. The European Council meeting talked about enhancing and strengthening the common security and defence policy—one that was begun under a Conservative Government in the UK and has been maintained under Governments of all colours since.

I was also a bit disappointed that the conclusions, in talking, rightly, about the comprehensive approach to security, did not mention development alongside the importance of crisis management and stabilisation. I wonder if, in the discussions that will take place over the next 12 months, the UK Government will ensure that the important role of development alongside diplomacy and defence is recognised as we work towards refreshing this CSDP in December 2013.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not share the view that the noble Lord has propounded that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s Statement was negative on this matter. There are many people in this country who will regard the British Prime Minister saying that we will not join a European army as an extremely good and positive thing. I would have liked to have seen the noble Lord agree with that.

However, on the common security and defence policy, of course we are fully behind proposals to increase our international security. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, a few moments ago, our policy is based very much on international co-operation. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence process, but we also have bilateral relationships with individual countries that are to the benefit of us all.

I cannot believe that the noble Lord, with all his experience, knowledge and background in development, particularly development in Africa, would think that this Government would ever shirk from talking about their development record, most notably the record amounts of money that we now spend, and focus extremely effectively, in the parts of the world with greatest need. That is something that the Government are very proud of. I am sure that future Councils will refer to development whenever they get around to discussing it.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, has it not been a cardinal principle of British foreign policy for hundreds of years to maintain our influence with powers on the Continent of Europe the policies of which are crucial to our interests? The Statement spoke somewhat vaguely about safeguards; the noble Lord has declined to be drawn on details. Will he explain to the House how, as European Council follows European Council, and as those countries that manage to survive as members of the eurozone continue to deepen their fiscal and political integration, the Government’s engagement with those core European powers, which will be concerting their polices to powerful effect, can be increasingly other than tangential?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, perhaps there is a philosophical gap between the noble Lord and the Government on this issue. We completely support the idea of a banking union within the eurozone; it is key to the eurozone succeeding in the longer term, and we have long supported it. At the same time, we wanted to have safeguards within the single market—which I know that the noble Lord supports—to ensure that there was non-discrimination. In the communiqué, we have an absolute commitment to non-discrimination within the single market for countries that are outside the eurozone.

I am bound to say, despite the rhetoric that sometimes comes from opponents of this Government’s policy on Europe, that this European Council—the last of seven of this year—has been a resounding success. I very much hope that it will set a good pattern for the course of the next few months.

Banking Professional Standards

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That notwithstanding the Resolution of this House of 17 July 2012, it be an instruction to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards that it should report on legislative action no later than 19 December 2012.

Motion agreed.

Public Bodies (Abolition of British Shipbuilders) Order 2013

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the draft orders be referred to a Grand Committee.

Motions agreed.

Patrick Finucane

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I would now like to repeat a Statement that was made by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon in the House of Commons on the murder of Patrick Finucane.

“The murder of Patrick Finucane in his home in North Belfast on Sunday 12 February 1989 was an appalling crime. He was shot 14 times as he sat down for dinner with his wife and three children. His wife was injured, and Patrick Finucane died in front of his family.

In the period since the murder, there have been three full criminal investigations carried out by the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Stevens. Taken together, they amount to the biggest criminal investigation in British history, led by the most senior police officer, and consisting of more than 1 million pages of documents and 12,000 witness statements obtained with full police powers. As a result of the third Stevens investigation, one of those responsible, Ken Barrett, was tried and convicted in 2004 for the murder of Patrick Finucane.

There was a further report by Judge Cory. Both Lord Stevens and Judge Cory made it clear that there was state collusion in the murder. This itself was a shocking conclusion, and I apologised to the family on behalf of the British Government when I met them last year. But despite these reports, some 23 years after the murder, there has still been only limited information put into the public domain. The whole country, and beyond, is entitled to know the extent and nature of the collusion, and the extent of the failure of our state and Government. That is why, last October, this Government asked Sir Desmond de Silva to conduct an independent review of the evidence to expose the truth as quickly as possible.

Sir Desmond has had full and unrestricted access to the Lord Stevens archive and to all government papers. These include highly sensitive intelligence files and new and significant information that was not available to either Lord Stevens or Justice Cory, including Cabinet papers, minutes of meetings with Ministers and senior officials, and papers and guidance on agent handling. He has declassified key documents, including original intelligence material, and he has published them in volume 2 of his report today. The decision over what to publish was entirely his own—it was entirely a matter for Sir Desmond de Silva. Sir Desmond’s report has now given us the fullest possible account of the murder of Patrick Finucane and the truth about state collusion. The extent of disclosure in today’s report is without precedent.

Nobody has more pride than me in the work of our Armed Forces, our police service and our security forces. I see at close hand the work they do to keep us safe. As Sir Desmond makes clear, he is looking at,

“an extremely dark and violent time”,

in Northern Ireland’s history. I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to the police and security forces that served in Northern Ireland, but we should be in no doubt that this report makes extremely difficult reading. It sets out the extent of collusion in areas such as identifying, targeting and murdering Mr Finucane; supplying a weapon and facilitating its later disappearance; and deliberately obstructing subsequent investigations. The report also answers questions about how high up the collusion went, including the role of Ministers at the time. Sir Desmond is satisfied that there was not,

“an over-arching State conspiracy to murder Patrick Finucane”,

but while he rejects any state conspiracy, he does find quite frankly shocking levels of state collusion. Most importantly, Sir Desmond says he is,

“left in significant doubt as to whether Patrick Finucane would have been murdered by the UDA”—

the Ulster Defence Association—

“in February 1989 had it not been for the different strands of involvement by elements of the State”.

He finds that,

“a series of positive actions by employees of the State actively furthered and facilitated his murder”,

and he cites five specific areas of collusion.

First,

“there were extensive ‘leaks’ of security force information to the UDA and other loyalist paramilitary groups”.

Sir Desmond finds that,

“in 1985 the Security Service assessed that 85% of the UDA’s ‘intelligence’ originated from sources within the security forces”.

He is,

“satisfied that this proportion would have remained largely unchanged by … the time of Patrick Finucane's murder”.

Secondly, there was a failure by the authorities to act on threat intelligence. Sir Desmond describes,

“an extraordinary state of affairs ... in which both the Army and the RUC SB”—

Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch—

“had prior notice of a series of planned UDA assassinations, yet nothing was done by the RUC to seek to prevent these attacks”.

When you read some of the specific cases in the report —page after page in chapter 7—it is really shocking that this happened in our country. In the case of Patrick Finucane, he says that,

“it should have been clear to the RUC SB from the threat intelligence that ... the UDA were about to mount an imminent attack”,

but,

“it is clear that they took no action whatsoever to act on the threat intelligence”.

Thirdly, Sir Desmond confirms that employees of the state and state agents played “key roles” in the murder. He finds that,

“two agents who were at the time in the pay of … the State were involved”—

Brian Nelson and William Stobie—

“together with another who was to become an agent of the State after his involvement in that murder”.

It cannot be argued that these were rogue agents. Indeed, Sir Desmond concludes that Army informer Brian Nelson should,

“properly be considered to be acting in a position equivalent to an employee of the Ministry of Defence”.

Although Nelson is found to have withheld information from his Army handlers,

“the Army must bear a degree of responsibility for Brian Nelson's targeting activity during 1987-89, including that of Patrick Finucane”.

Most shockingly of all, Sir Desmond says that,

“on the balance of probabilities … an RUC officer or officers did propose Patrick Finucane … as a UDA target when speaking to a loyalist paramilitary”.

Fourthly, there was a failure to investigate and arrest key members of the West Belfast UDA over a long period of time. As I said earlier, Ken Barrett was eventually convicted of the murder, but what is extraordinary is that back in 1991, instead of prosecuting him for murder, as the RUC CID wanted to, the RUC Special Branch decided instead to recruit him as an agent.

Fifthly, this was all part of what Sir Desmond calls a wider,

“relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice”,

after the murder had taken place. Sir Desmond finds that,

“senior Army officers deliberately lied to criminal investigators”.

The RUC Special Branch, too,

“were responsible for seriously obstructing the investigation”.

On the separate question of how certain Ministers were briefed, while Sir Desmond finds no political conspiracy, he is clear that Ministers were misled. He finds that,

“the Army and Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials provided the Secretary of State for Defence with highly misleading and, in parts, factually inaccurate advice about the … handling of … Nelson”.

On the comments made by Douglas Hogg, Sir Desmond agrees with Lord Stevens that the briefing he received from the RUC meant he was “compromised”. But he goes on to say that there is,

“no basis for any claim that he intended his comments to provide a form of political encouragement for an attack on any solicitor”.

More broadly on the role of Ministers, Sir Desmond says that there is,

“no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any Government Minister had foreknowledge of Patrick Finucane's murder, nor that they were subsequently informed of any intelligence that any agency of the State had received about the threat to his life”.

He says that the then Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Mayhew deserves,

“significant credit for withstanding considerable political pressure designed to ensure that Brian Nelson was not prosecuted”.

As a result, of course, Nelson was prosecuted in 1992, following the first investigation from Lord Stevens.

The collusion demonstrated beyond any doubt by Sir Desmond, which included the involvement of state agents in murder, is totally unacceptable. We do not defend our security forces, or the many who have served in them with great distinction, by trying to claim otherwise. Collusion should never, ever happen. So on behalf of the Government, and the whole country, let me say again to the Finucane family, I am deeply sorry.

It is vital that we learn the lessons of what went wrong, and for Government in particular to address Sir Desmond's criticisms of,

“a wilful and abject failure by successive Governments to provide the clear policy and legal framework necessary for agent-handling operations to take place effectively and within the law”.

Since 1989, many steps have been taken to improve the rules, procedures and oversight of intelligence work. There is now a proper legal basis for the security services, and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has established a framework for the authorisation of the use and conduct of agents. In addition, the activities of individual agents are now clearly recorded, along with the parameters within which they must work. The Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Office of Surveillance Commissioners now regulate the use of agents and report publicly to this House. Taken together, these changes are designed to ensure that the failures of 1989 could not be made today.

Policing and security in Northern Ireland have been transformed, reflecting the progress that has been made in recent years. The Force Research Unit and the Special Branch of the RUC have both gone, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland is today one of the most scrutinised police forces anywhere in the world. It is accountable to local Ministers and a local policing board and it commands widespread support across the whole community.

Through all these measures, both this Government and their predecessors have shown a determination to do everything possible to ensure that no such collusion ever happens again. We will study Sir Desmond’s report in detail to see what further lessons can be learnt, and I have asked the Secretaries of State for Defence and Northern Ireland and the Cabinet Secretary to report back to me on all the issues that arise from this report. I will publish their responses. Other organisations that are properly independent of Government—police and prosecuting authorities—will want to read the report and consider their own responses.

Sir Desmond says that his conclusion,

“should not be taken to impugn the reputation of the majority of RUC and UDR officers who served with distinction during what was an extraordinarily violent period”.

He goes on to say that,

“it would be a serious mistake for this Report to be used to promote or reinforce a particular narrative of any of the groups involved in the Troubles in Northern Ireland”.

I am sure that those statements will have wide support in this House. We should never forget that over 3,500 people lost their lives and there were many terrible atrocities. Sir Desmond reminds us that the Provisional IRA,

“was the single greatest source of violence during this period”,

and that a full account of the events of the late 1980s,

“would reveal the full calculating brutality of that terrorist group”.

During the Troubles, over 300 RUC officers and 700 British military personnel were killed, with over 13,000 police and military injured. I pay tribute to them and to all those who defended democracy and the rule of law and who have created the conditions for the progress we have seen. We must not take that progress for granted, as we have seen this week, and I pay tribute again to those in the PSNI who are once again in the front line today. We must not and we will not allow Northern Ireland to slip back to its bitter and bloody past.

The Finucane family suffered the most grievous loss and they suffered it in the most appalling way imaginable. I know they oppose this review process and I respect their views. However, I respectfully disagree with them that a public inquiry would produce a fuller picture of what has happened and what went wrong. Indeed, the history of public inquiries in Northern Ireland would suggest that had we gone down that route, we would not know now what we know today.

Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years and there is still more to do to build a genuinely shared future. One of the things this Government can do to help is to face up honestly when things have gone wrong in the past. If we as a country want to uphold democracy and the rule of law, we must be prepared to be judged by the highest standards, and we must also face up fully when we fall short. In showing once again that we are not afraid to do that, I hope that today’s report can contribute to moving Northern Ireland forward. In that spirit, I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for her response to the Statement. She is right that it is essential that we should remember the background against which we operated at that time and, following on from that, she is right to note the enormous changes that have taken place during the course of the past 25 years, most of all during the peace process in the past 20 years. The noble Baroness asked a number of questions, to which I shall try to reply.

Perhaps I can deal with one question relatively quickly, on the Irish Government and their likely position. I can confirm that the Prime Minister spoke this morning to the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny. The position of the Irish Government, that they have been in favour of a public inquiry, has been widely known for a long time. However, they understand why we have taken the decision that we have taken, and they respect that we have been entirely open and frank. I hope that they, like everybody else who has an interest in this issue, will find some comfort in the integrity of the process once they have considered Sir Desmond’s report. The position of the Irish Government is, of course, one for them to determine.

I am well aware that the decision not to hold a public inquiry was controversial. However, our ambition and motivation as a Government was to frame a real question: what is the fastest way to get to the truth and to lay out what happened? We know what has happened in the past with public inquiries; some of them took five or six years, or even longer, cost tens of millions of pounds and perhaps did not even get closer to the truth than de Silva has got in his report today. We therefore very much support our decision to have this inquiry led by Sir Desmond de Silva.

At the time of the general election, this went to the core of the point made by the noble Baroness about confidence in Northern Ireland and in the process that we have conducted. In answer to whether we can say with full confidence that the whole truth has been uncovered, this is a very long report and individual noble Lords will want to review and read with care what has been said. However, it is clear that Sir Desmond de Silva has done the whole nation a tremendous service in trying to get to the heart of the matter and uncover the truth, building on the work that had been done by previous individuals. This was a fast way to find the truth. That is a good thing for Northern Ireland.

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, her Government had nine years between Weston Park and the general election to decide to go ahead with a public inquiry. It is not a decision that they took, possibly because they understood as much as we have done the problems of time and expense. The key thing is to get to the truth. I venture to suggest that very few countries would have set it out in so much detail or laid out what went wrong as comprehensively as we have done today. We should all take some pride in a country that is willing to do that. It is an agony in many respects to read what has been said, but it is right to publish and to ensure that people who have been affected can see the work that Desmond de Silva has done. That is very much the basis of the decision that we took and we stand by it.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions for my noble friend the Leader of the House, so that he can answer as many as possible.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I thank the Prime Minister for instituting the de Silva inquiry and for his apologetic and sympathetic response to the Finucane family.

No Member of this House could listen to the Leader of the House reading out the Statement without being deeply shocked and dismayed at its horrifying content. This cannot be other than a source of national shame. One of our citizens was murdered in his own home with the collusion of state agents, and subsequently, for 23 years, there has been obstruction of the proper authorities in the investigation of these matters, including by senior officials in the Ministry of Defence, the police and security services, to the point, according to this report, that Ministers were lied to and misled, and they then misled Parliament. How is it possible to hold our own authorities to account if they are being so grossly misled in this way? This is a time for deep national shame and self reflection because it begs real questions.

It does no credit to our House to refuse to accept the clear reality of what went on. Authorities here must learn that you do not defend democracy by undermining the very principles of democracy, decency, honesty and of abiding by the proper law. I trust, although I frankly do not believe it, that some elements of government in Northern Ireland understand that playing footsie with paramilitaries and colluding with them, including in threats to some of my own friends recently, is no way to promote democracy. It is a travesty of democracy. How can we assure ourselves that these things will not happen in the future? We will not do so merely by responding to this Statement; I trust that there will be a full debate in your Lordships’ House and that we will properly learn the lessons, not by more inquiries but by more decisions as to how we hold these matters to account in the future.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I understand exactly what my noble friend is saying and the force with which he says it, with all the experience and knowledge that he has in his personal background and the part that he has played in Northern Ireland. He is right in saying that none of us could hear the Statement made by the Prime Minister without being deeply shocked and dismayed by what has happened—the level of collusion and the cover up that took place thereafter.

He said that it was a national shame and he is right, but part of dealing with that is to confront it by having the review that we have taken, publicising it and apologising for what happened. There is also the second point, which I think my noble friend was referring to, about what has changed and how to ensure that these things do not happen again. The background within which the security services operate is so entirely different from that existing in the late 1980s when there was no legal framework against which they operated.

RIPA 2000 created a proper legal and policy framework within which to gather intelligence. There is now therefore an unambiguous framework which puts all work relating to agents on a statutory footing and is designed to prevent the same mistakes and abuses being made today. RIPA is also underpinned by a range of non-statutory frameworks and codes of practice which set out clear processes for the day-to-day management of agents by relevant agencies. Managers, the PSNI and the security services are required to ensure that staff comply with this legislation. The Statement referred to the PSNI now being the police force with more scrutiny that any other in the world. I think that that is right.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

My Lords, as somebody who has been fortunate to survive 10 murder attempts by the Provisional IRA, I find this isolated apology quite ridiculous. The reality is that the Finucane family were an IRA family. I illustrate this by saying that when I made that allegation publicly and was being sued for libel, the family retracted and paid my legal expenses. Let us not therefore fool ourselves about the “Godfather” Finucane who was killed. If there was connivance, let me say that all of us who served through the heart of the Troubles in Northern Ireland served in such a way that it was impossible to have a secret. Why were there 10 attempts on my life? Why was the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, shot? It was because there was conspiracy.

I point out that less than 1% of all terrorist suspects involved in proactive security force operations were killed by the security forces, and that 99% of cases ended in arrest. There were no incidents of unlawful killing in a Special Branch-led operation in Northern Ireland, and the security-force response was totally human-rights compliant. Let us not forget all those years of terrorism and become compelled by a single incident which may in fact—and I will not deny it—have involved conspiracy. If one sought justification—and I do not justify it—it was not without a godfather. Godfathers were responsible for so many murders in Northern Ireland, it should not be forgotten.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, brings his own particular view of these issues. Indeed, Sir Desmond looked at the accusation that Patrick Finucane was a member of PIRA, and on the basis of the evidence that he saw he concluded that he was not. I know that that was not the entire point that the noble Lord was making, but the Government have nothing to add to Sir Desmond’s conclusions on this point.

I am bound to say that the question of PIRA membership is not in this case particularly relevant. The point that was made in the Statement and as a result of the review is that the state should not have been involved in Patrick Finucane’s murder. It is on that basis that the state has made the apology.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I declare an interest. I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Patrick Finucane was murdered and I was Secretary of State for Defence when the possible prosecution of Brian Nelson arose. I join my noble friend in recognising —as he did in repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement, and as we all must—that this was an appalling crime of which we should all be ashamed. It should not have happened and it is particularly appalling because there is clear evidence of significant collusion. It was an appalling crime at what the Statement calls a dark and violent time in Northern Ireland. I was not surprised at the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Alderdice. The House has had the opportunity to sense some of the tensions that so rapidly rise to the surface, and which one can now see on the streets of Belfast.

That is in no sense an excuse for what happened. One of the things that I most resent about this is that the appalling things that happened in this case sully the reputation of very brave security forces who, over all those years and with huge personal suffering to them and their families, stood to protect the Province of Ulster, Northern Ireland, against the risk of total disaster. We should recognise that.

I take exception to one element of the Statement repeated by my noble friend: namely, the phrase “state involvement”, which is now current. I understand why it has arisen. It gives the impression that somehow the Government planned the murder of Patrick Finucane. It is an appalling concept that I as Secretary of State somehow authorised it. Of course, that is totally untrue. In my time I committed myself to trying to save every life that I possibly could on both sides of the community, however people were involved.

What is also clear is that there were incidents in which people were in clear breach of their orders or instructions. The Statement claims that there was no co-ordinated legal basis for the employment of agents. I draw the attention of the House to something in Sir Desmond de Silva’s report which states that agents were being handled at that time under the strict instruction of the Commander Land Forces Northern Ireland, Tony Jeapes, that it was unlawful for any person to authorise any illegal act, and that if there was any possibility of an agent becoming involved in criminality, the assistant chief of staff was to be informed through the commanding officer of the FRU so that preventive measures could be taken. Mr Nelson’s handler was acting in total breach of that instruction at the time. I should say that some of the agents, informers or touts—they go under different names in Northern Ireland—were incredibly brave people who saved an enormous number of lives. The difficulty of handling them should not be underestimated.

This is an impressive report. One or two people have already passed judgment on it. Nobody can have read it yet except the Prime Minister, who obviously was briefed on it. I have only managed to read the executive summary. There is an enormous amount in the report. It needs further study and I will not pay great attention to any comments until people have had a chance to read the report through and then address the issue of whether there should be a further public inquiry. I have great respect for the noble Baroness and understand why she said that a public inquiry might ensure that we would get to the truth. There are no grounds for saying that until we have seen how close we think Sir Desmond de Silva has got to the total truth of the matter, and considered what could be achieved by going for a further public inquiry. This is what challenged the previous Government and why, nine years on, there has been no progress. This is what they were wrestling with. It is difficult to see what the benefit of a public inquiry would be, and I can see some real disadvantages, not least because there should be prosecutions arising from some of the things in the report. If we go for public inquiry, it would probably prevent that being possible.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I very much agree with what my noble friend said about the public inquiry. He has heard what the Prime Minister and I said on that question. My noble friend started by saying that this was an appalling crime. He is right. The key thing for us to remember—this is another thing he said—is that the accusation of state collusion sullies the memory of all those individuals who fought to defend democracy without having to go down this route. That is what makes this so appalling.

Of course I entirely agree with my noble friend that this is a lengthy report that has taken many months to compile. It builds on the work of previous investigations, including that of a distinguished Member of this House. There were a million pages of documents. This is the most comprehensive of comprehensive reports and it requires time to look at it.

On the question of Ministers’ knowledge, de Silva is very clear. He says there is:

“no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any Government Minister had foreknowledge of Patrick Finucane's murder ... nor that they were subsequently informed of any intelligence that any agency of the State had received about the threat to his life”.

There is no evidence at all that any Ministers had any knowledge at the time of Nelson’s targeting activity, or that they were encouraged or directed in any collusive activity with the UDA. That is a very strong statement.

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, the de Silva report is profoundly disturbing with its statement that Sir Desmond is satisfied that Patrick Finucane was identified by a police officer for targeting, that he was targeted, that he was not warned of the risks to him—risks which existed in 1981, 1985 and 1989—despite the extent of the knowledge of the activities of these UDA men, and that the investigation into his murder was repeatedly obstructed—all examples of state collusion. The Prime Minister has rightly apologised yet again to his family for what the Prime Minister described as,

“shocking levels of state collusion”.

Mr Finucane was not involved in IRA activity. He was a lawyer carrying out his professional duties in profoundly difficult and dangerous circumstances. I am sure that Members of this House will again wish to express their sympathy to the Finucane family, just as I am sure that all those upright officers with integrity in the army, the police and the security services will wish to share their sympathy at the pain that the Finucane family must be experiencing again today.

But this was not an isolated situation. Investigation has shown that this pattern of activity was not unique to the UDA in west Belfast. The Prime Minister has stated, and the noble Lord has repeated, that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has established a framework for the authorisation and conduct of agents. However, as Police Ombudsman I found as recently as 2003 that the Surveillance Commissioner was not being properly informed about UVF agents who were engaged in murders, attempted murders and other very serious crimes. Given the very small office of the Surveillance Commissioner, the pattern and nature of the investigations and inspections which are carried out by the Surveillance Commissioner, and particularly the resources available to the Surveillance Commissioner, is the Minister satisfied that there is adequate funding to enable the identification of any police failures in the handling and management of state agents?

This remains a profoundly important question. We have in Northern Ireland ongoing activities of republican paramilitaries, including the recent bomb in Derry. We have ongoing loyalist paramilitary activity. We have the current loyalist disturbances, which have caused huge distress and damage in Northern Ireland. And most recently we have had threats, not least death threats to a Member of the other place, Naomi Long, who serves constituents in East Belfast. This is a profoundly important matter for the future security of the United Kingdom. I thank the Government for what has been achieved thus far. Having read some of the report this morning, I will consider it further.

[Lord Strathclyde]

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

[Lord Dubs]

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

[Lord Strathclyde]

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

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I have been reading the report since 8.30 am. I do not understand how the Official Opposition can come to the conclusion that another inquiry is needed when there are over 500 pages to be gone through. The inquiries into the six cases that flowed from Weston Park have required very substantial amounts of expenditure and effort put into finding the truth. Is the Leader of the House aware that if there is to be another inquiry into this case—and I am seeking his assurance now that that will not happen—I have a list of at least 13 other cases involving multiple deaths over a very long time that have just been completely airbrushed out of history? Can the Minister give an assurance that we are going to stop this process of ongoing and never-ending inquiries and concentrate on building a genuinely shared future, where we move forward instead of raking over the coals of the past for ever?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely correct in what he says. I understand the way that he says it and the reasons for it. We can spend a great deal of time, energy and money raking over the coals of the past. What we sought to do in setting up this review was to find a distinguished individual with the greatest possible reputation to conduct it. Sir Desmond’s report has now given us the fullest possible account of the murder of Patrick Finucane and the truth about state collusion.

I confirm to the noble Lord that we would not expect any further report to yield more information—it is fully in the public domain. Of course, I recognise that, on all sides, dealing with the past is still a live issue in Northern Ireland. However, there are other opportunities for families who lost loved ones to find out more, beyond inquiries, such as through the work of the historical inquiries team and the coronial inquests. I repeat again what I said a few moments ago: there is a time for us to deal with the past but it is even more important for us to deal with the problems of the future and to engage more and more in maintaining a level of peace for the people for Northern Ireland—all the people of Northern Ireland—so that they can prosper.