Breaks for Carers of Disabled Children Regulations 2011

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the draft regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.

Deaths of Members: Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

My Lords, I regret that I have to inform the House of the recent deaths of the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lords’ families and friends.

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

My Lords, I pay tribute to Lord Windlesham, who died on Tuesday 21 December, aged 78. We remember him today principally in light of his role as Leader of your Lordships’ House from June 1973 until February 1974, but his was a career so much more than those turbulent and testing eight months. He was a man whose great qualities needed no titles to shine through. He achieved a great deal in public life, but he was admired more than anything else for his quiet, tactful and sympathetic understanding of the people and the issues that surrounded him. A liberal in character and a Conservative in party, he was not afraid to be independent minded, even if that at times set him against those of his party.

Lord Windlesham was educated at Ampleforth and Trinity College, Oxford, where he read law. He was commissioned in the Grenadier Guards—his father’s regiment—for national service, yet on graduation he soon found a passion for politics sitting side by side with a career in television. In the general election of 1959, he stood unsuccessfully as the Conservative candidate in the Tottenham seat. The tragic and unexpected death of his father—the second Lord Windlesham—in 1962 changed the trajectory of his political career and deprived the Commons of what clearly would have been one of its youngest and brightest stars. As has often been the case, their loss was our considerable gain.

Taking his seat as the third Baron Windlesham, and ever with an eye towards the topical and yet enduring questions of government, he made his maiden speech in this House on the subject of reform by supporting Tony Benn’s desire to renounce his peerage and remain in the Commons. It was not without irony, therefore, that after further reform in the 1990s and towards the end of his own career, Lord Windlesham was made a life Peer in order that he might continue to bring his considerable expertise to the service of the nation.

As Minister at the Home Office between 1970 and 1972, Lord Windlesham took responsibility for the penal system against the backdrop of a rising prison population. He handled both the Immigration Bill and the Industrial Relations Bill with calm efficiency and considerable charm, as it was then said. At the newly created Northern Ireland Office, from 1972 to 1973, his appointment as the first statutory Catholic to hold ministerial office for the Province at a time of rising tension was described as “inspired” and his way of business “even-handed”.

Thereafter, as Leader of this House and Lord Privy Seal, until the Conservative Government fell in February 1974, Lord Windlesham was the youngest Leader since Lord Grenville in 1790. Lord Windlesham brought a quiet, authoritative manner to the handling of important and often difficult business. A safe and steady pair of hands, courteous and precise, brave and yet never over-reaching, he stood by his Prime Minister, his party and his country during some of their toughest times.

Lord Windlesham continued to lead the Opposition in the Lords until the second election of 1974, whereafter he resigned the post and again turned his attention to television as managing director of ATV. In 1982, he was appointed chairman of the Parole Board, which meant more often than not defending a system that was under much criticism. In 1988, he found himself in a similarly criticised position, when he was caught between the political establishment and television documentary makers. His independent inquiry into the factual accuracy of Thames TV’s “This Week” investigation into the shooting of three members of the IRA in Gibraltar prompted disagreement with No. 10 but won the support of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

David Windlesham mixed in equal measure a keen sense of public service with an independent, liberal and fair mind. He was generous in spirit and firm in purpose. His political instincts and his media skill would not have looked out of place in a modern-day Administration. His understanding of many of the challenges that Governments of all ages continue to face was acute and will be missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this sad time. They and we have lost a great man and a great friend.

My Lords, although precedent may not provide for this as such, it also seems right at this time to pay tribute to Lord Strabolgi, who died on 24 December, aged 96. He was the 11th Baron. He succeeded his father as long ago as 1953, and during Wilson’s first Government became a PPS at the Home Office and then, in 1969, PPS to Lord Shepherd as Leader of the House. After a spell as an opposition Whip in 1974 he became government Deputy Chief Whip, tasked with getting difficult and controversial business through the House. Back again in opposition, he became arts spokesman—a role that he relished—and, in 1986, Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chairman, positions that he held until 2001, having been elected a hereditary Peer in 1999.

Lord Strabolgi seemed in so many ways part of the fixtures and fittings of this House. It may have taken him a while to get from the top of the stairs to the Chamber, but it was at least in part to greet his many friends from all round the House. Lord Strabolgi was a Labour man through and through. He took his party politics seriously but that was always without rancour. He was a dedicated attender and was in the House two days before he died. We send our condolences to his family and pay tribute to the extraordinary example of service and humanity which the late Lord Strabolgi leaves us.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the House, and to the Leader of the House, for this opportunity to say a few words about Lord Windlesham and Lord Strabolgi—two very fine servants of your Lordships’ House. David Windlesham had a remarkable number of distinguished careers: in the media, in both production and management; in academia in Oxford, especially at Brasenose College; and in government, particularly at the Home Office. But of course his period in this House was equally as distinguished. I have had the honour to do just one of the jobs that he undertook, as Leader of this House, and I pay tribute to the work that he did. To be Leader of your Lordships’ House is both an enormous privilege and an exacting task, and Lord Windlesham carried out his role in this Chamber in an exemplary way.

To be a Member of your Lordships’ House is a great privilege. To be a Member for any length of time extends that privilege enormously. To be a Member for 56 years, as David Strabolgi was—as an active and assiduous Member—is quite extraordinary. David served this House well. His long service as a Deputy Speaker in your Lordships’ House reflects that and it reflects the esteem, respect and popularity in which he was held by all sides of this House. He served these Benches well too. He held firm political convictions. He served in Labour Administrations in the 1960s and 1970s, and on the opposition Front Bench in the 1980s.

Entirely coincidentally, we held a little party in my room here for David just a few weeks before his death, to mark his 96th birthday, and in the words that he spoke to us on that occasion his commitment to these Benches and to our party’s values was as clear as his commitment to the House as a whole. David also contributed much to wider society, especially in relation to the arts. He was a painter and had a studio in Paris shortly before the war. He also contributed much to Franco-British relations.

This House has lost two very fine Members who were very fine servants of their own parties. Both will be missed on their respective Benches but it is a tribute to them both that they will also be much missed on all sides of your Lordships’ House.

Peers

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Selsdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the announcements by the Prime Minister to appoint a number of new life Peers as “working Peers”, what is their definition of a “working Peer”.

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

My Lords, the term “working Peer” has been used since the 1950s to refer to Peers appointed to the House of Lords following nomination by one of the political parties. Such nominations are subject to vetting for propriety by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

[Lord Selsdon]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that little bit of history, but is he aware that the official advice given to me is that there is no term “working Peer” and that Members of your Lordships' House, other than the 20 who hold positions and are paid from the public purse, do not work? Will he therefore explain to me whether I am right or wrong, and whether the only term of comparison that I can find in my research is correct; that is, that the nearest relationship is the worker bee? If we do not work, are we all known as drones?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I know that my noble friend speaks for himself in posing these questions. He said that he was glad of my little history lesson. I know that he has done endless research on this question. He is broadly right: there is no statutory basis for the term “working Peer”. It does not appear in the Companion or in our Standing Orders. It has been used in the past as a term of convenience. My view is that all Peers come here to work; no Peer comes here except as a volunteer; and they fully understand the duties that they will have to perform when they get here.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right to say that all Peers come here to work, but is not the question whether there is enough room for them to come given the propensity of the Government to appoint many more of their own Peers to flood this place?

[Lord Strathclyde]

We know, my Lords, that there is not enough room. However, I am delighted to say that, very shortly, I shall be receiving from my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral a report on retirement from the House. I hope that will point us in the right direction of finding ways to reduce our numbers voluntarily or perhaps even otherwise.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Geddes]

My Lords, is there not an implication in the style of “working Peer” that those of us who are not deemed to be such are idle?

[Lord Strathclyde]

That was certainly the view in the 1950s when the term was first introduced. I do not think that it is necessary to use the phrase “working Peer” any more. It is certainly not one that I will use from now on and I shall encourage others not to use it either. I do not think that Peers should encourage being described either as working or non-working Peers.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

Could I ask the Leader of the House about working Ministers? Is he satisfied that a significant number of his Front-Bench colleagues are not in receipt of a ministerial salary? Is that not an undesirable trend, which was started by the previous Administration and continued by this one? I declare an interest as someone who was for a considerable time unpaid and latterly was paid.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord deserved exactly what he got. The noble Lord tempts me. This is slightly beyond the scope of the Question. There is a statutory limit to the number of Ministers. I regret that there are Ministers who are unpaid in your Lordships' House but they are all volunteers. They all signed up and knew what they were getting when they started. It is a great honour and a privilege to serve Her Majesty's Government in this House.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

When the next crop of Peers is finally in, what will be the proportion of Peers on each of the Benches?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, appointments are entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister, but the coalition agreement indicated that, pending long-term reform of the House, we would gradually move towards appointments made more in proportion to the political parties in the House of Commons.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, after the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, reports on retirement arrangements, what does my noble friend think should be done, if anything, about those Peers who do not take the enticement but do not speak, do not vote, do not serve on committees and often do not attend?

[Lord Strathclyde]

That is exactly why I will await the final report of my noble friend: to see whether or not he raises any of those issues.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, could a working definition of a working Peer be a Member of your Lordships' House who spends a lot of hours in the Chamber very properly scrutinising ill thought-out, badly prepared and excessive legislation such as the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill brought in by this Government?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, in many ways, that may well have been a definition of those Peers who worked bravely on behalf of the Opposition in the dark years between 1997 and 2010. However, I indicated in answer to an earlier question that I thought the term “working Peer” was now outdated.

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that without financial inducements there is no possibility of any Peer—or very few Peers—retiring?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, when the leave of absence scheme was introduced, several hundred Peers—or in the low hundreds—took advantage of it without financial inducement, so I do not agree with the noble Earl’s premise. I also think that the public would find it very hard to understand why many who had been given the honour of being a Member of the House of Lords should then be paid to leave it.

Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill be taken on one day) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the Loans to Ireland Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

That appears to be the position. The proposal does not have the support of Parliament and, as my noble friend Lord Anderson has pointed out, does not have the support of any individual party.

Suppose that, in a referendum with no threshold where implementation was compulsory, the turnout was 40 per cent. In that case, a result could be reached in which only 20 per cent of the country had voted in favour of AV. When we debated—last Wednesday, I think—my noble friend Lady Hayter’s Amendment 43, we heard how that proposal for a 25 per cent threshold could have produced a situation in which the change was effected if only 13 per cent of the population voted in favour of the proposition. Most countries in the world—sensibly, in my view—make it harder to change the constitution than to make other sorts of legislative change. The Government’s extraordinary proposal could lead to a change following a tiny proportion voting yes. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, with characteristic robustness and honesty, took pleasure in the fact that, if 13 per cent voted in favour of the change in the voting system, the result could indeed be that the voting system should change. The only occasion when any sort of threshold has been required for a referendum that would have changed our constitution was on the only previous occasion on which implementation of the referendum decision was compulsory rather than indicative. I was not in the House of Commons in 1978 or 1979 but many who are here were, and all of them who have spoken have said that the Member for Islington South, Mr George Cunningham, persuaded people on a free vote that, when changing the constitution under such a proposal—which people thought might lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom—there has to be legitimacy. On the face of it, the effect of the Government’s proposal is a manoeuvre that could lead to a change in our constitution.

However, there is no point in debating whether Mr Nick Clegg is correct in saying that the proposal is the most important change since 1832. I do not think that anyone doubts that the proposal is an important change, but if the public think that it is the wrong change, they will not like it and their distrust of Parliament will increase. Our role in the Lords is to make the Commons think again, particularly in relation to the constitution, if we think that they have got it wrong. Our debate on the issue last Wednesday—I single out in particular the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—demonstrated the constitutional trickiness of the proposal. The fact that we could end up with Parliament not approving—and, indeed, probably being against—the proposed system but a tiny amount of the population being persuaded to vote for it shows that something has gone wrong in the way that we are dealing with the issue.

The proposal of my noble friend Lady Hayter is that, for the referendum to have effect, every country in the United Kingdom must vote yes. I tend towards the view that that is not the right answer because, in my view, we should do everything to promote coherence in the United Kingdom. That means that, where we are voting on a national voting system, implementation of any referendum should be guided by what the national vote is. Therefore, I would reject that approach. However, I am extremely keen that whoever replies from the Front Bench on behalf of the coalition should deal with the points that I have made. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, we debated the issue late at night last Wednesday and this is a point of real importance in relation to the constitution.

Finally, I want to pick up on what my noble friend Lord Rooker said about there being a legal and binding agreement between the members of the coalition not to agree to any outcome threshold. Of course, he is wrong about there being a legal agreement, because we are talking about politics here. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has returned for the end of the debate. It may be that, having heard the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—whichever of them is answering the debate—will think that there are things more important than simply the terms of an agreement that was reached over a few days. I have in mind in particular a change to our constitution, which people of this country respect.

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

My Lords, we have certainly had a longer debate than I had imagined when I first saw this amendment, but it has been useful and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having introduced it. When I first saw it, I thought it was possibly imaginative, possibly a little bizarre. I am not sure that I came to a conclusion as to which it was during the course of the debate but I became convinced it was flawed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, agreed with me on that, as did other notable noble Lords from the other side, including the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Grocott, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, as well. I therefore very much hope that, when it comes to deciding what to do with it, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

I was not planning on being drawn into a larger debate on thresholds. We discussed it well the other night. It is, however, worth making one or two points. The best suggestion to come out of this debate was that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and my noble friend Lord Tyler should get together over the Christmas period and discuss whether there could be some areas of agreement between them. If I may speak for my noble friend Lord Tyler in his absence, I am sure he will wish to take up the noble Lord’s invitation, and I hope to hear the good results from that discussion.

I hope the House, including my noble friend Lord Lamont and others, do not think that I do not understand why imposing a threshold might appear initially attractive. On the surface, it may seem to offer an extra layer of reassurance, particularly if the change that is being put to the vote is one that you personally do not favour. However, it is the Government’s firm view that if people want change—if a simple majority of those who turn out to vote want change—we should not deny them this by imposing artificial barriers. We have not specified a voter turnout threshold because we want to respect the will of the people who do vote in the referendum without conditions or qualifications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

We will have plenty of time to discuss the Localism Bill when it arrives here. It has yet even to be debated in the House of Commons; it has just been published. However, I can confirm that we have no intention of introducing thresholds. That reminds me of a question asked by the noble Baroness about whether we had any plans vis-à-vis trade unions. Again, I confirm that we have no plans to introduce thresholds for trade union ballots. However, so many noble Lords on the other side have spoken in favour of thresholds that if they were to make a proposal to me about thresholds for trade union ballots, I would very much like to read it.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

On consistency, I was one of those in the other place who voted for the Cunningham amendment in 1978. In the Lobby with me and certain dissident Labour Members was almost 100 per cent of the Conservative Party at that time. What has changed since 1978, when the Conservative Party was clearly in favour of a threshold?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, as I hinted, I am at a disadvantage compared with many noble Lords because I was not in the House in 1978. In 1978 there was the prospect of the collapse of the Labour Government, which is exactly what happened. On 1 March 1979 the threshold was not reached, and the nationalists changed their minds and did not support Jim Callaghan in his vote of no confidence. It was rather an admirable tactic.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Essentially, the Minister is saying that it was no more than opportunistic. It was a matter of tactics at the time and there was no point of principle.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I have no idea whether there was a great point of principle at stake in 1978. I am simply explaining its effect. The Labour Government might well have continued for another six months in 1979 if they had not lost that vote of no confidence. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Lawson is not here. He told the House some interesting anecdotes from 1978, but I am sure we will return to that on Report.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, is the position today not a mirror image of that? If the noble Lord is right, the position was taken in 1978 to avoid a Government falling; the position this time is to create a situation in which a Government can be formed. It seems that the same motive in effect applies.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying that this is a matter of tactics by Labour Party Back-Benchers, many of us on this side of the House would agree that noble Lords opposite are operating tactically on this, particularly when we compare what they have been saying about thresholds in debates in this House with what has been said in another place. When the House of Commons was asked to vote, it voted by 549 to 31 against having a threshold. The Labour Party followed those on the government and Liberal Democrat Benches to vote against a threshold.

[Lord Touhig]

A moment ago the noble Lord talked of thresholds as being artificial barriers. What is AV if it is not a threshold?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we are talking about a referendum on whether people wish to have AV. During the course of the campaigns people will no doubt make that point—as the noble Lord will and perhaps even as I will—but that is not what we are discussing today. We are discussing today whether there should be a referendum and whether it should be done by clean majority. I support the idea of a referendum; I am happy to trust the people on this. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, talked about this earlier. Was he not the architect of the CRaG Bill before the last election, which proposed an AV referendum with no thresholds anywhere across the United Kingdom—no voter thresholds, turnout thresholds, outcome thresholds or any kind of threshold you could possibly imagine. There has been a change of mind.

[Lord Mawhinney]

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He just said that we are talking today about a clean referendum with a clean majority at the end. Does it remain the Government’s view that any size of majority, no matter how small, would be legitimate, given that this a constitutional measure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it does. One vote would be enough under the terms of this legislation.

[Lord Wills]

Before the noble Lord moves from my comments on this, I refer him to tomorrow’s Hansard so that he may see exactly what I said about thresholds. I also expressed very clearly my worry about the effect of the way in which the Government are proceeding on the state of the union. I would be very grateful if he could address those concerns, which have been raised not only by me but by very many noble Lords this afternoon.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I very much agree with what the noble Lord said about the union, and with other noble Lords from all sides of the House who made exactly the same point. That is why we would not want to encourage this amendment in any way at all.

We will come back to thresholds on Report; this is an important debate to have. There was no threshold in 1975 in the only national referendum that we have held. The Opposition’s ardour for thresholds did not apply in 1997 and 1998 in their four referendums in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. There has been no proposal from any major political party for a threshold in the referendum in Wales next March that would extend the powers of the National Assembly. Most tellingly, when AV was proposed in the Bill before Parliament, there was no threshold in that either.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I think it is right that the only time there was a threshold was in the compulsory referendum in 1978, which meant that Parliament would have no opportunity to consider whether there was a very low turnout.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble and learned Lord makes a good point, but the referendum that we are dealing with today is very simple; it is yes and no on changing the electoral system. The referendum that the people of Scotland and Wales faced in 1978 was entirely different and raised much more fundamental issues of constitutional propriety and the setting up of different Parliaments and Assemblies in both those countries.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not acknowledge, as the Deputy Prime Minister has done, that this is the greatest reforming measure since 1832? Since the 1970s it has become a convention, when major constitutional matters are being considered, that there be consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. There has been neither consultation on, nor pre-legislative scrutiny of, this legislation.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I really do not agree. There has been much discussion on changing the electoral system for as long as I have been of voting age. It has been discussed many times in and outside Parliament. People are very well versed on this. As for this new convention that the noble Baroness has introduced, when the role of Lord Chancellor was scrapped, it was done on the back of an envelope—in a press release. There was no consultation or discussion whatever, even with the judiciary. It led to the resignation of the then Lord Chancellor, to be succeeded by the noble and learned Lord, so this is an entirely new convention. It may be very desirable, but it is new.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble Lord is so right; and the consequence was that the House, unprecedentedly and contrary to convention, referred that Bill to a Select Committee instead of granting it a Second Reading. We spent 18 months considering it, and although I kicked and screamed at the beginning, I said at the very end that the 18 months had been really worth it to make it a much better Bill. Please learn from that experience.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am glad that if the noble and learned Lord ever finds himself in government again he will not make the same mistakes.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My noble friend has tried to merge the motives of people in voting for thresholds with the arguments for and against thresholds. He says that voting for the Cunningham amendment was motivated just by opportunism. He has, not I am sure with any malicious or impolite intention, also implied that those who have argued for a threshold in these debates have done so because they are against AV. However, will he not address some of the arguments on their own merits? For example, does not the fact that almost every European country has a qualified majority for constitutional change show that there is something in this argument?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that no impoliteness is intended in any shape or form. However, I largely stand by the fact that most of those who speak in favour of a threshold tend to be those who are most opposed to the policy of having a referendum or who are against AV, which is why they want a qualification.

My noble friend asked an interesting question about what happens in other European countries. The answer is that different countries do different things. Let us take just one example. I think I am right in thinking that France requires a majority in Parliament for making constitutional change, but does not require a threshold when there is a national referendum. I am sure that we could trade statistics from around the world about different countries doing different things, but France is an example of it being done in that way.

[Lord Lipsey]

My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord has chosen the best possible example for his case. In France, changes in the electoral system have become a plaything of whichever Government are in power, partly because there are not the constitutional barriers to mucking about with voting that have always existed in this country.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that may well be an argument in a campaign either for or against AV. It is not an argument that can be used to decide whether there should be a referendum on that issue or whether there should be any limits or artificial barriers, as I call them, on this.

I think that everyone now knows what the amendment would do. It would require a majority vote in favour in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, rather than a simple majority. We cannot contemplate a system whereby 100 per cent of voters in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland vote in favour of a proposal, only for it to be rejected because only 49 per cent of voters in Wales agree with them. I know that that is an extreme example, but it could be the effect of the amendment and it none the less highlights the fundamentally undemocratic consequences of this proposal. That is why the coalition agreement commits us to providing for a simple-majority referendum on the alternative vote, without qualification.

[Lord Wills]

The noble Lord is being very generous in giving way. However, does he not accept that whatever the view about a threshold, a differential result in each of the constituent nations of the union could have profound implications for our United Kingdom—for the union? He must accept that. It is a logical assumption to make. If he accepts that, why does he reject the proposition? Is it not more reasonable for Parliament, the acme of our representative democracy, to assess those results, know what they are and then judge how to proceed? Is that not the most sensible way forward?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not agree with that; this is a United Kingdom vote on an electoral system for the United Kingdom Parliament. If the majority of those taking part in a referendum vote “yes”, is it not right that Parliament accepts that result and carries on? That seems to be the fundamental position and it is why we resist the amendment, as we have resisted other amendments made here and in another place. We think that if we introduced these thresholds, they would have undesirable consequences, compromising public confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome. We want to respect, without conditions or qualifications, the will of the people who vote in the referendum, and I believe that a simple majority is the fairest way of doing so. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for all their interventions, which have given me an interesting history lesson—particularly for 1978. Earlier, the other Cunningham—my noble friend Lord Cunningham—was here, although I do not think that he is in his seat at the moment. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, played a different role in 1978, and each will have their memories of that referendum. We have also heard the history of my noble friend Lord Lipsey and me. He recalled that we met in 1970 but the date was actually 4 August 1970. We have heard stories of the misspent youth of my noble friend Lord Foulkes in Kentish Town, and even West Country lingo, which I shall not repeat in this House.

The essence of the debate has clearly been far more important than those personal recollections. One of the interesting questions was put by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, who asked whether one vote was enough, to which the answer is clearly “yes”. Perhaps that is why Members of your Lordships’ House will have a vote in the referendum—because the Government may be dependent on every last vote. I always wondered why we suddenly got into that.

It has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer that neither House has come out in favour of AV. Indeed, as I think my noble friend Lord Howarth added, nor has any party come out in favour of it. The Labour Party never even discussed it. I was chair of the Labour Party at that time and it was the party in Parliament that first decided to have a referendum. However, the party as such has not taken a view on it. That is quite correct; it does not have to do so. Individual members’ views will be known but it will certainly not be a collective view.

I think my noble friend Lord Lipsey suggested that I was a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of first past the post due to having tabled this amendment. However, that is not the case. I marginally favour first past the post over AV but I can live with AV. I am a passionate supporter of the constituency link but of course that matter will not be in front of us today. However, I do not accept the allegation that I am doing this because I have a particular view on that. I do not think that this is a bizarre amendment, as the Leader of the House referred to it. Rather, as my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport said, we should be sensitive to the sentiments of each of the four countries, especially if, in the voting, one of them is out of line with the others. We should respect the results in each of the four countries for this outcome to have legitimacy. That does not mean that we necessarily stop the train; it means that we have time to pause and consider, and really all that the amendment asks is for the Government and Parliament to have time to pause and consider.

This is not an amendment about thresholds. As most Members of the Committee will know, I tabled one such amendment last week. It was very modest, and in fact I was ticked off by some of my noble friends as it referred to only a 25 per cent threshold. However, that was last week and this amendment is different: it avoids the risk of an abstention counting as a “no” vote; it is about the result, not the turnout; and, as has been said, it bypasses any difficulties with the wording that the coalition may have. It is essentially, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, an insurance against the irreversible change that the referendum might make. We could, of course, have different systems. I do not agree that just because it is one House there must be one system. I worked for a long time in the European Parliament where we had completely different systems that brought Members to the European Parliament. We lived quite happily with that result.

This amendment, therefore, is about having time to reconsider before the automaticity of the implementation happens. I hope that the Government are going to give some thought to this general view, whether it be a threshold on turnout, or outcome, or, indeed, looking at these four results.

Having failed, however, to win over even my own Front Bench I will, at this stage, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

European Council

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it may be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week's European Council. Britain had three objectives at this Council: first, to bring stability to the eurozone, which is in Britain's interests; secondly, to make sure that Britain is not liable for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect; and, thirdly, to build on the progress we made with the 2011 EU budget, with tougher settlements in the years to follow.

Let me address each objective in turn—first, stability in the eurozone. No one can doubt this is in our interests. Nearly half our trade is with the eurozone, London is Europe's international financial centre, and no one can deny that the eurozone faces very real challenges at the moment. We see that in the Irish situation and with Spain and Portugal paying interest rate penalties in the financial markets. Britain's approach should not be simply to say, ‘We told you monetary union would require fiscal union’, and leave it at that. We want to help the eurozone to deal with the issues it faces.

The fact that we have set out a path to deal with our deficit and seen our interest rates come down is helpful. Following the dinner at which leaders of all the EU countries had a wide-ranging discussion on the state of the eurozone, eurozone leaders issued a statement saying they,

‘stand ready to do whatever is required’,

to return the eurozone to stability. Part of that is a permanent mechanism for assisting eurozone countries that get into financial difficulty.

Enabling eurozone countries to establish such a mechanism is in our interests, but how this mechanism is brought about is equally important. After the October Council I made it very clear to the House that any possible future treaty change would not affect the UK, and that I would not agree to it if it did. I also said clearly that no powers would be transferred from Westminster to Brussels.

At this Council we agreed the establishment of a permanent mechanism with a very limited treaty change. This change does not affect the United Kingdom and it does not transfer any powers from Britain to the European Union.

Secondly, on the issue of liability for any potential bailout of the eurozone in future, Britain is not in the euro, and we are not going to join the euro. That is why we should not have any liability for bailing out the eurozone when the new permanent arrangements come into effect in 2013. With the current emergency arrangements, established under Article 122, we do. This was a decision taken by the previous Government. It is a decision we disagreed with at the time and we are stuck with it for the duration of the emergency mechanism, but I have been determined to ensure that, when the permanent mechanism starts, Britain's liability should end. That is exactly what we agreed.

The Council conclusions state that this will be a,

‘stability mechanism for member states whose currency is the euro’.

This means it is a mechanism established by eurozone countries for eurozone countries, and Britain will not be a part of it. Crucially, we have also ensured that the current emergency arrangements are closed off when the new mechanism comes into effect in 2013.

Both the Council conclusions and the introduction to the actual decision to change the treaty itself—the actual document that will be presented to this Parliament for its assent—are clear that Article 122,

‘will no longer be needed for such purposes’,

and that,

‘Heads of State or Government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes’.

So both the Council conclusions and the decision that introduces the treaty change state in black and white the clear and unanimous agreement that from 2013 Britain will not be dragged into bailing out the eurozone. Before the Government agree to this treaty change, Parliament must first, of course, give its approval, and if this treaty change is agreed by all member states then its ratification in this country will be subject to the terms of our EU Bill and so will be subject to primary legislation.

Thirdly, let me turn to the issue of the EU budget. Securing a tight budget for the future remains my highest priority for the EU. I believe it is a priority shared by the vast majority of the country. At the last Council, we managed to do something we have not done in previous years. We were faced with a situation where the Council had agreed a 2.91 per cent increase. This was not the UK's position. We had wanted a tougher settlement, but were outvoted, yet the Parliament went on and called for 6 per cent increase, but instead of just splitting the difference between what the Council asked for and what the Parliament called for—which is what happened last year—Britain led an alliance of member states to decisively reject the European Parliament's request. We insisted on no more than the 2.91 per cent increase the Council had previously agreed. Many predicted this would be impossible and that Britain would be defeated, but this will save the British taxpayer several hundred million pounds. We also agreed a new principle that from now on the EU budget must be in line with what we are doing in our countries.

We did this by taking the initiative and galvanising others to join us, and we sent a clear message that when we are making cuts at home, with tough decisions on pensions, welfare and pay, it is simply not acceptable to go on spending more and more and more through the European Union. At this Council, I wanted to keep up the momentum on the EU budget by forging an alliance with like-minded partners and starting to work towards securing a tougher settlement for future budgets. At the weekend, Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and I, together with the Prime Ministers of Finland and the Netherlands, sent a letter to the President of the European Commission. This letter sets out our goals for the budgets for 2012 and 2013 and the longer-term financial perspective covering the rest of this decade. It states clearly our collective view that,

‘the action taken in 2011 to curb annual growth’,

in European spending should be stepped up in 2012 and 2013, and we call for a real-terms freeze in the period from 2014 to 2020. I want to achieve a decade of spending restraint in Europe, and the three biggest powers in Europe, the three biggest net contributors to the budget, have committed to that. This is an important step forward.

There are two problems that Europe must urgently address. First, the eurozone is not working properly. It needs major reform, and it is in our interests not to stand in the way of that. Indeed, as I have argued, we should be actively helping the eurozone to deal with its issues. Secondly, Europe as a whole needs to be much more competitive. Collectively we must press ahead with measures which will help European countries pay their way in a world where economic competition internationally is becoming ever fiercer. We must expand the single market in areas such as services, press forward on free trade and, crucially, avoid burdening businesses with costly red tape. We must promote stability, jobs and growth. That is the agenda this Government are pursuing in Europe, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for responding to the Statement and for the way in which he did so. He made three substantial points and asked questions. I shall try to answer them but, if I am unable to do so, I shall of course right to him in the normal way.

This was an important Council meeting because the issues facing the EU were varied and substantially economic. Some issues were related to the eurozone and the Council took steps to deal with them; and some were related to the budget, which we believed had grown out of control in the past few years.

First, the noble Lord made the point—whether or not he was agreeing with me was hard to tell—that the budget was not the victory it looked because the European Parliament had wanted an increase of 5.9 per cent, or whatever it was. The point is that after the last Council the European Parliament voted for—indeed, demanded—6 per cent. The normal way would have been to split the difference between 3 per cent and 6 per cent and ended up at 4.5 per cent. However, with other countries, we stood firm at 2.9 per cent and were right to do so. In a letter that we have agreed with the major net contributors to the EU, we have set a new standard by which future budgets will be judged. I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree that that is good news.

Secondly, the noble Lord agreed that there is a requirement for a new permanent mechanism—I think that is absolutely right—but he went on to ask why we should go through the hoops. The hoops, incidentally, are to allow Parliament to have a say, not only in the arrangements that we already have in the House under the terms of the Lisbon treaty but in new primary legislation. That is not going through the hoops but putting the decision where it should lie—in Parliament—and that is why we are doing it. There is no question of a referendum because there is no question of a transfer of power from the British Parliament to the European Union.

On the question of growth, the noble Lord is again right to say that there is a problem; there is a crisis in the eurozone and with the euro. We want the EU to succeed—it is in our vital British interests that it should do so—including countries such as Ireland and others which have found themselves in trouble. We believe that we are on the brink of a substantial, export-led growth but Europe, too, needs a credible growth agenda. As the noble Lord pointed out, the EU’s potential growth is forecast to be just 1.7 per cent in 2014.

We believe that each member state needs to carry out its own reforms—that is why the UK Government have launched their own growth review—but there is a strong case for similar determination at the EU level, where Europe 2020 needs to provide a more focused drive towards making progress in areas where there is significant EU value added and can genuinely promote growth. For example, we should focus throughout Europe on a more efficient and competitive single market, especially on increasing productivity and trade in the services sector; we need a more ambitious and open approach to global trade to allow Europe to benefit from growth elsewhere, particularly in Asia; we need a framework for innovation that enables technological change; and we need smarter regulations that will leave enterprise freer to drive the growth that we need.

No one underestimates the challenges that face this country and the rest of Europe. However, with some of our enlightened European partners, we believe that with this kind of agenda for growth we can get ourselves out of trouble.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and, through him, to congratulate the Prime Minister on his perseverance and clarity in his clearly difficult negotiations in Brussels. One of the successes of the Statement is that it is forward-looking. We all know of the difficult issues that are still with us, two or three years after the financial crisis, in the peripheral countries of the eurozone. It was surprising to hear so much time devoted by the Official Opposition to the past and what the Government might or might not have promised in previous years. Media reports suggest that some concessions were made in terms of the financial perspectives moving forward to the period 2014 to 2020—indeed, the Germans secured their Lisbon treaty revision to establish the financial stability facility—but it was disturbing to hear that there was agreement with the French that the common agricultural policy would remain untouched. In other words, our desire to achieve greater efficiencies will not now bear fruit. Will my noble friend reassure us that we will continue with our commitments to reform the common agricultural policy? I wonder also whether he could reassure us that the newer eurozone countries, which have done very well by the structural funds and would naturally be loath to see them cut back, will nevertheless have conversations with us to attain that end, because we cannot all have cake every day.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right: we cannot have cake every day. Throughout Europe, different countries in different ways are learning the lesson of increasing productivity and trying to do more for less. The Prime Minister had one thing on his mind, and was not alone in so doing. He made it clear that, with leaders having to look at cuts in all sorts of very sensitive areas in their home countries, as we have had to do in ours, it was quite wrong to see net contributions to the EU continue to rise exponentially and that we needed to come forward with a very sensible plan over the next few years.

My noble friend Lady Falkner asked about our commitment to reform the CAP. This has been a long-standing commitment, and we cling very firmly to our view that the CAP needs to be reformed. Discussions on it will continue, likewise on the structural funds.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to study last week’s financial stability report from the Bank of England, which demonstrated the interconnectedness of the obligations of British banks and those of banks on the continent and suggested to the reader that, should there be any kind of sovereign debt default in a member state in the eurozone, Britain and British banks would be heavily involved in any debt restructuring that was necessary? In this case, is it not time that, instead of trying to pretend to their anti-European and Eurosceptic Back-Benchers that Britain can stand aside from the problems of the eurozone, the Government recognised that we are in these problems up to our neck, that if we want a credible growth strategy for Britain we must also have a credible growth strategy for the eurozone, and that we should be ready as the United Kingdom in our national interest to play a full part in that?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have not had time to study the stability report from the Bank of England to which the noble Lord referred, but I understand exactly what he was saying. With the greatest respect to him, I think that his question was misconceived. There is no fear from us that we are trying to appease anti-European or sceptical Back-Benchers. These are bogeymen that obviously exist in the noble Lord’s nightmares. We have no such nightmares and no such concerns. If any such concerns exist, they are partly dealt with by explaining that there will be a process in the British Parliament for agreeing the changes that we have made. Of course, as I laid out in the Statement and in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we have a clear strategy for growth in the United Kingdom and believe that there should be a clear strategy for growth in the rest of Europe.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I perked up slightly at the Minister’s first answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he said that the treaty change would be settled in this Parliament, as it should be. I was then a bit saddened to hear that it is only treaty changes that do not affect us that get settled in Parliament and ones that do affect us get settled somewhere else. This reflects a very odd view about the primacy of Parliament.

On the budget, on the financial perspectives, I strongly welcome the fact that the Government are taking a tough line in the initial phases of that negotiation. I think that that is absolutely necessary, but they seem to have nailed their colours to something that used to be known in the jargon as “zero real growth” for a period of 10 years. That is a very long time. I do not imagine that the Government will be proposing zero real growth in public expenditure in this country for 10 years and, if they do, their prospects of re-election in 2015 may be a bit damaged. So some care needs to be taken about what is a very long period ahead, although I very much agree that taking a tough line at the beginning is good.

Finally, will the noble Lord confirm that the fact that Montenegro was accepted as a candidate country shows that the European Union is continuing with future enlargement in the Balkans and elsewhere?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I certainly agree with what the noble Lord said at the end about Montenegro, which we hope, over time, will be able to play a full part in the European Union. I liked the noble Lord’s characterisation, at the start of his words, about treaty modifications. Of course, what he did not go on to say, when speaking about parliamentary sovereignty, or the primacy of Parliament, is that if there is a substantial transfer of power, we will take it to a referendum of the people of this country. We may disagree about that, but I think that it is a perfectly logical position for us to have.

The substance of the noble Lord’s point was about zero real growth for 10 years. We have proposed that we should reduce growth up until 2014 and that between 2014 and 2020 there should be no growth, or zero real growth, as the noble Lord pointed out. We cling strongly to this view in part because of the difficulties faced by individual member states within the European Union. There is also a sense that over the last few years some of the spending within the EU has not been as carefully controlled as it might have been. This is an opportunity for the EU to review its own budgeting process and I very much hope that it will be supported by other member states in due course.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, since it must now be clear, even to our political class, that the euro is designed for failure, with its single interest and exchange rates and its absence of a federal budget, except in extreme illegality, will the noble Lord give a commitment on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government that we will not voluntarily bail out Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy and Belgium in the same way that we have volunteered to bail out Ireland?

Secondly, have the Government worked out how much it would cost to return Ireland to its national currency? Would that not be the obvious and very cheap thing to do, followed in short order by Portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy? Have they any idea what that would cost compared with the billions that we are throwing down the eurodrain?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is not for us to work out the cost of Ireland or any other country leaving the EU.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Because it would save us pouring all these billions down the drain.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we certainly played a part in the Irish bailout because we perceived it to be in our national interest, whether Ireland was in the eurozone or otherwise, for reasons that the noble Lord knows well.

The noble Lord asked another question: what happens if another country asks for similar support? He went on to list a few of them. There have been no requests for financial assistance from other member states. It is therefore inappropriate for me from this Dispatch Box to speculate on what may or may not happen in other member states given that no request for assistance has been made. The European financial stability mechanism and the European financial stability facility are fully operational. Any request for assistance from a member state would be considered on its own merits.

The noble Lord started by saying that the eurozone was designed for disaster. It is not easy for those who were not in favour of us joining the euro in the first place to make a coherent argument for the euro, but it is in existence. It is in our political and economic interests in Britain for the euro to succeed and that is why we continue to support it.

[Lord Maples]

My Lords, could my noble friend help me with my memory of the Maastricht treaty, which set up the euro? I seem to remember that two of the conditions were that: first, no Government should run a budget deficit of more than 3 per cent of GDP; and, secondly, that there should be no bailouts? Is not the reason that the European Union—or the eurozone at least—is now having to breach the no-bailout clause because Governments were allowed to breach the deficit clause? Will that change not create a huge moral hazard? They were getting away with breaking the deficit clause but they did not know that they were going to get bailed out. Now that they know they are going to get bailed out, that is creating a moral hazard that surely will encourage bad behaviour in the future. When my noble friend says that we are in favour of these arrangements, is that because we think that it will make the euro stronger or weaker?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend is right some of the conditions for entry into the euro that were laid out in the Maastricht treaty, and other conditions including those on deficits, have been broken. I believe that there is a sense of moral hazard because they have been bailed out, but it is in the interests of everyone within Europe to make sure that no further countries find themselves in financial trouble. That is why the eurozone is itself taking steps to try to manage its affairs in a more coherent way.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord, with the puppies snapping at his heels, but will he accept my congratulations on the first few paragraphs of the Statement which say that we indeed think that it is in Britain's interest to bring stability to the eurozone? That is an important signal for people in the City of London and elsewhere who think the opposite.

Secondly, President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel and our Prime Minister have written a joint letter on the budget. If we are going to have that close triangular relationship, does it not follow that that will probably be true of banking, energy policy and other areas? The question of creep towards Brussels running things, which is a bit of hyperbole, is one of evolution rather than any major revolutionary change.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, yes, we are in favour of stability in the eurozone, but we also feel that it is entirely right for nation states to stand up for their interests and to get together. That is in a way exactly what happened in this letter between Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and others, who suggested—rightly, in my view—that it is time for the European budget to come under further control. That is not seeking to centralise power within Brussels; it is seeking to exert more pressure and more control from member states on the European Union. That is a very good direction of travel.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, the noble Lord has been under attack for trying to kowtow to his Eurosceptic Back-Benchers in the Tory Party. Some of us think that the Government kowtow far too much to the Europhiles, so there is a real difference of opinion. In all the latest opinion polls, a majority of the British people do not want any further powers to be ceded to Europe, and over half of them would like to leave the European Union.

Could I ask the noble Lord a question about the eurozone? In one part of the report, the statement is made that it could work only if there was fiscal union as well— saying that it did not want to tell the European Union this, but going on to do so anyway. Is the noble Lord aware that any reform with regard to the larger powers involves fiscal union? That is what France, Germany and, indeed, Italy want. Can I have the assurance that this would be opposed by the British Government and, perhaps, even by the British people through a referendum?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord says that we have been accused of kowtowing too much to Europhiles. We have certainly been accused of kowtowing to Eurosceptics. The main point of this, which the noble Lord has understood very well, is that we have said clearly that if there is to be a transfer of power from this Parliament to the European Union, it should be subject to a referendum. We hear what people are saying in various polls about their view that too much power has been ceded, that they are not consulted enough and it is all being done the wrong way. We will make this a matter of statute when later in this Session we get to the European Bill, which I hope the noble Lord and other noble Lords will support.

The countries of the eurozone need to sort out their own problems. No doubt some of us will have different views as to how that should be done but, if there was a move down the road towards a European-wide fiscal solution for European-wide economic problems, we would oppose it.

[Lord Trimble]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trimble]

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to say with regard to the proposed new bailout proposals that they affect only the eurozone and do not affect us, so there is no change in our position and no need to consider a referendum on the issue. However, it is probably worth pointing out that, with regard to the eurozone, the proposed changes would be very substantial indeed. The new proposals empower the EU to enforce strict conditionality, which the Wall Street Journal says today is bureaucrat-speak for telling a country what it must do on taxes, spending and economic policy as a price for being rescued. Those are very substantial changes.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My noble friend is absolutely correct; they are substantial changes. However, the eurozone needs substantial changes because of the problems that it has found itself in.

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement says that the eurozone needs major reforms. What specific items did he have in mind?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is not for us to tell the eurozone how to sort out its own problems. I have laid out some proposals this afternoon on how we think Europe should grow again, and I stand by them.

[Lord Gilbert]

Has it not become clear to even the blindest Eurofanatic that the real problem with the eurozone is that the north is moving at a very different rate from the south, and that tensions would be considerably relieved if they broke up into two?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am not sure that that is plain to everybody, nor is it, I think, a desirable solution. What is desirable is that the member countries should work together to find common solutions to common problems, including economic ones. If that means that the eurozone needs to rewrite its rules, then that is exactly what it should do.

Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on 21 December to allow the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, what a most unusual debate we have just had. We had a fascinating history lesson from my noble friend Lord Lawson; I will come back to that. We had a disagreement between my noble friend Lord Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about what was said in the House of Commons and what was meant by what was said, and different bits being prayed in aid. We had a slight disagreement about the grouping; I slightly lost track of it, but I will go with the mood of the House, whatever it is. I am very happy to speak to all the numerical thresholds, but not to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and not to the noble Baroness’s other amendment about separate nations of the United Kingdom having different thresholds.

It is most unusual, because while this House often disagrees with another place, I cannot think of a time—I am sure that someone will find one—where another place voted so overwhelmingly in one way, and where the tone of this debate has been the other way. My noble friend Lord Tyler was right to remind us about what happened in the House of Commons; when it was asked to vote on thresholds, it voted 549 to 31. It was an astonishing, astounding majority. Chris Bryant, speaking for the Labour Party, said that he did not think that it is appropriate to bring in a threshold. I am genuinely confused by the position of the noble and learned Lord’s party as to whether or not they are in favour of a threshold. I think he said that he was; the Labour Party next door was clearly not. They may have changed their minds, or it may be something else. The noble and learned Lord cracked on about 19 per cent and how dreadful that would be, yet in 2005 the Labour Government were elected with 21.6 per cent of the electorate—derisory for a referendum on 19 per cent, but jolly good for the Labour Party on 21.6 per cent. We can make of that what we want.

In 1997, this House debated these issues. What did the Labour Party say in 1997? The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who is sadly not in his place tonight, was the Minister. He said:

“The threshold, as we have demonstrated, is one of the most dangerous introductions into the democratic process that has been engineered”.—[Official Report, 7/7/97; col. 467.]

That was the Labour Party then. Tonight, the Labour Party is doing what it used to accuse the Liberal Democrats of doing—of saying one thing in one place and another in another, and changing their minds as the debate went on. We will have to see how this continues over the next few days.

My noble friend Lord Lamont spoke beautifully, as he does. I very much accept his view—although rather less so—that imposing a threshold might initially appear attractive; on the surface it may seem to offer an extra layer of reassurance and of legitimacy, particularly if the change being put to the vote is one that you personally do not favour. It is the Government’s view, however, that if people want change, and if the majority of those who turn out to vote want change, we cannot deny them this by imposing artificial barriers. People should know that if the majority of people vote for AV in the referendum, they will get AV. We must let people have their say, otherwise we will not help to restore people’s faith in politics.

That is why I was so fascinated by my noble friend Lord Lawson. I am sorry that there are not more colleagues here from those days. I was probably too young to vote in the referendum in 1978, but I accept that the Conservative Party voted for the threshold. I do not remember it being an issue of deepest principle. I think it was low-down cunning politics—and quite rightly, because the Labour Party was divided on the issue. It was trying to stop the nationalists by introducing devolution, and the Conservative Opposition quite rightly saw a great opportunity to try and ensure that the referendum would not be won, and that that would so destabilise the Labour Government that an election would be forced, and we would have the great years of rule. So my noble friend Lord Lawson was quite right in voting for it.

[Lord Rooker]

I have kept out of this debate, but I will give the Leader of the House the reason. It was the result of one of the finest speeches that I heard in 25 years in the House of Commons. The place was packed and I suspect that half the people in there did not know at the beginning how they were going to vote. George Cunningham turned the House around. I say that in all sincerity; he is no personal mate of mine. It was an absolutely magnificent speech. That was a big factor, along with the bit of low cunning that people saw as a consequence as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

Sorry, she was leader of the party, but she did not take part. It was a completely free expression of opinion based on principle.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that just goes to show what happens when you have unwhipped votes. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lawson knew which way he was going to vote on that day and rightly so. That is all part of the fabric of history that has brought us to this point. My point of principle remains that if people want to vote they need to know that, if there is a majority, they are going to get what they voted for.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

What happens if only 13 per cent of the registered electorate vote in favour of the change in the referendum question? Will that 13 per cent, which is one in eight people in the country, be taken as the basis on which we can make this huge constitutional change?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, under the terms of the Bill, yes. But is that likely to happen? The noble and learned Lord got his calculator out—

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that, if only 12 per cent vote against this change, there cannot be much opposition to it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Up to a point, because I am going to argue in a moment that a threshold will encourage abstention and that therein lies a danger. Also, the Constitution Committee of this House recommended that the presumption should be against voter turnout thresholds in referendums.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

It says, though, that that may be different in relation to serious constitutional issues.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Well, I will have to check—not that I disbelieve the noble and learned Lord, but I will have to reread my well thumbed copy of that report.

We have not specified a voter turnout threshold, because we want to respect the will of the people who vote in the referendum, without conditions or qualifications. These amendments seek to specify a minimum turnout threshold so that, if less than 25, 40 or 50 per cent of those eligible to vote in the referendum cast a vote, the result will be voided.

Specifying a threshold for voter turnout can effectively make every abstention a no vote. People may abstain from voting in a referendum for any number of reasons, such as ignorance, apathy or ambivalence. It does not seem appropriate to regard such people as effectively having expressed a preference. In addition, a threshold may create an incentive to abstain from voting for those who favour a no vote. This cannot be right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Just to follow up on that important point, what is the evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is relying on?

[Lord Strathclyde]

It is obvious that if there is a threshold on turnout and you encourage people not to vote, the threshold is not reached.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has been listening to his noble friend Lord Lawson, who is saying that sometimes a threshold will encourage people to vote yes. The question that I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is: what does the evidence point to?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we have had only one national referendum. What evidence there is exists because it is either common sense or, as my noble friend Lord Tyler has worked out, a matter of simple mathematics. Interestingly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, did not say that my noble friend Lord Tyler’s example was wrong. In fact, he was quite right; in his example, where 45 per cent vote yes and 4 per cent vote no, what happens is that the answer is no. Where is the justice in that? I am sorry that that is hypothetical.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The issue, as posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson—correctly, in my view—is whether or not the threshold encourages votes. There have been referendums not only in the United Kingdom; there have been referendums in a whole range of countries. I presume that the Government have done some research on this before responding on the issue of thresholds. What does that research show? The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is shaking his head, looking bewildered and saying, “No, I can’t tell you”. He is saying to me that he regards the idea that the Government would have done any research into this as preposterous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, this useful little exchange has demonstrated why we rather oppose these thresholds on turnout or anything else.

Fundamentally, this is about turnout. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that the amendment was an insurance against the disaster of a low turnout, which noble Lords have said that they feared. Let me reassure the House. There are a number of reasons to believe that this will not be the case. Combining the referendum with other elections on 5 May will increase voter turnout. The campaigns in the run-up to the referendum will increase public awareness and people’s desire and interest to vote. Additionally, the work of the Electoral Commission in promoting public awareness about the referendum and the media coverage that the referendum will receive gives us reason to believe that the referendum will secure a very healthy turnout. Indeed, statistics from previous referendums in the UK show that turnout is on average about 50 per cent.

The Bill does not specify a voter turnout threshold since it is not necessary or desirable. We should listen to the overwhelming vote against this type of amendment that was cast by another place. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and that other amendments in this group will not be moved.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I have had an interesting lesson in politics tonight. I am growing up fast. I thank some of the speakers for part of that. I was made to feel very sheepish by the excellent research done by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on other jurisdictions and by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, on the noble Lords who sat with him in another place. I have also had a few lessons on arithmetic and one on the continuity of effort by my noble friend who continues as chair of his local party. My noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport said that I was being “simply inadequate” about the 25 per cent threshold. The words “ridiculously small” came from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, but I think the sentiment was the same.

We still find that, at the core of this, the “small premium” that could achieve insurance against the remote possibility of small turnout remains essential and a constitutional issue of great importance for this House to consider. Unlike the election of a government, it is effectively irreversible. We want as many people as possible to have bought into the change should it happen. The full-hearted consent was how somebody put it. It is interesting that, other than the Minister, the only opposition to this has come from the Liberal Democrats—a party that has the word “democrat” in their name. I find it interesting that they oppose this fairly minor bit of democracy of having a threshold. There should be a threshold because it is a decisive referendum. It is not an artificial barrier. Unlike my good friend George Cunningham, I cannot deliver a magnificent speech to persuade you all of that this evening. I hope that these discussions will continue. However, to allow that and further consideration, I beg leave withdraw this amendment.

Houses of Parliament: Access during Demonstrations

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Soley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the answer by Lord Wallace of Saltaire on 9 December (HL Deb cols. 298-300), whether they will clarify the position relating to access to Parliament by Members during demonstrations.

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

My Lords, the position relating to access to Parliament by Members during demonstrations does need clarifying. With the agreement of the other party leaders, the Convenor and the Lord Speaker, I have asked the Clerk of the Parliaments and acting Black Rod to report back as soon as possible on, first, what the current effect is of the sessional order passed in the Lords and, secondly, how the House authorities input into the police operations around Parliament specifically to seek to ensure access for Members and staff.

[Lord Soley]

I very much welcome that Answer, because there was considerable concern in all parts of the House about the Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, to the Question asked last Thursday. The main problem was that he seriously understated the constitutional importance of preserving access for Members of both Houses in order to discuss, vote and decide on the affairs of the nation. It would not be the first time in the history of this country—or, indeed, many other countries—that mobs have prevented people from accessing Parliament when it needs to carry out its fundamental duty to protect our constitutional democracy. I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for answering today, but will he make sure that that point is given high status when we discuss this issue? I would be happy to give my views. This is not in any way a criticism of the police, whom we all go out of our way to help in these profoundly difficult situations. Frankly, however, this is not just about the right to demonstrate; it is about the right of a free Parliament to meet, decide and vote on the affairs of the nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I warmly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has just said. It is extremely important that at all times Members of this House and another place have unhindered access to go about their business in Parliament. However, the police have a very difficult job. While they do everything that they can to make sure that the entrances are not overwhelmed, very occasionally that happens. As Members of this House, we need to be aware of alternative routes so that we can still get here to do our duty.

[Lord Marlesford]

Does my noble friend agree that part of the business of Parliament is to respond to the lobbying of Members of Parliament and that maximum practical access to the Palace for lobbyists is desirable, first, so that they can make their points and, secondly, so that parliamentarians can respond? Last week, those of us who saw it would have realised that there were far fewer lobbyists here than the House could comfortably accommodate, which was a pity. Part of that was a product of the problems in Parliament Square. Does my noble friend agree with the point made by my noble friend Lady Trumpington yesterday that one of the real problems is the permanent encampment in Parliament Square, which occupies a lot of space and is therefore an obstacle to democracy?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I certainly agree that part of the role of Parliament is to accept those who wish to lobby Parliament and parliamentarians in this building, which is why we support the peaceful right to protest. I also agree with what my noble friend Lady Trumpington said. It is a view shared by many people in both Houses that what seems to be a permanent encampment in Parliament Square is no longer necessary, if it ever was. That is why the Government have published proposals to try to tackle the problem.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I welcome the report called for by the noble Lord from the Clerk of the Parliaments and acting Black Rod. On the theme of Parliament Square, in his response to the Statement yesterday the noble Lord referred to what he described as the,

“disjointed ownership of different parts of the square”.—[Official Report, 13/12/10; col. 423.]

Will the overall work of the Government in this area produce a solution to that disjointed ownership?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we are trying to find a solution that will suit both the owners of Parliament Square. The problem is not so much one of ownership as the way in which the law is applied to the areas under different ownership. We believe that, under the proposals that we are about to publish, we will have an opportunity to solve the problem.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, concentration is inevitably on access to Parliament when it is physically difficult to get here, but access is important at all times, a view that I know the House is very enthusiastic about. Will the Leader of the House look again at the notices at the entrances to Parliament? They state:

“Trespass on this Site is a Criminal Offence. This is a protected site under Section 128 of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005”.

Will he consider whether it is necessary to have such aggressive notices around a democratic place of work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is a view that some of the violent acts that we have seen perpetrated in recent weeks need to be dealt with strongly and that the police, who do a difficult job, need to have a clear role in catching the perpetrators, arresting them and charging them. As for the signs around the buildings, I think that it is also fair enough for the public to be well aware of when they are about to commit an act of criminal trespass so that there is no excuse and no defence if they are caught doing so.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is quite impossible to get into the road that surrounds the Liberal Democrat headquarters? It is now almost like a fortress. Could he use his efforts, along with those of his colleagues, to try to get the road open to the public?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the road is closed completely on occasion, although I am well aware from my own experience that residents are able to gain access to the street where the Liberal Democrats have their headquarters. I hope that we can move on from this episode of violent demonstrations by a student group. Perhaps what happened last week has had a salutary effect not only on those who organise these marches and the National Union of Students, but also on the colleges and institutions of higher education that these students attend.

Parliament

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that Parliament is able effectively to hold them to account.

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

My Lords, it is primarily for Parliament itself to determine how it can best hold the Government to account. However, I have sought to help that process in this House by setting up a Leader’s Group to consider our working practices.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the establishment of the Leader’s Group, and I am sure that it will have some fruitful deliberations. Do the Government view the Cabinet manual, which we understand that they will be publishing later this week—possibly even tomorrow—as a first step towards a written constitution for this country, as was postulated in today's Daily Telegraph? How will the Cabinet manual improve government accountability in Parliament?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the Cabinet manual has yet to be published, so I will not comment on it. As to whether or not it is a precursor to a written constitution, no, I do not think so.

[Lord Boston of Faversham]

While I normally find myself in accord with what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, says, is it not a rather strange concept that Her Majesty's Government would wish to be called to account?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I always admire the noble Lord for his questions. However, I think that the Government have an interest in the generality of being held to account by Parliament; that is part of our support for the parliamentary process as a whole. I have to say that in this Parliament, I think that noble Lords opposite—the Official Opposition—are doing a very good job.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I welcome this Question. In the previous Administration, the Executive were far too powerful and the legislature so weak. Had it been the other way round, perhaps there would have been better scrutiny of war with Iraq. That said, does the Leader’s Group intend to look not only at the composition in terms of reform of the House but at the functions of both Houses and how they relate to each other, bearing in mind that in a fully elected House the Salisbury convention would no longer apply?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, a Leader’s Group led by my noble friend Lord Goodlad is looking at the working practices of the House. There is another committee led by the Deputy Prime Minister looking at reform of the House of Lords; that will report early in the new year. As for the previous Government, I think that after 1997 there was a move away from good parliamentary governance, and the relationship between the House of Commons—another place—and the Government changed. We have sought to put that back.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, is not parliamentary governance and accountability a total fiction at present? To have parliamentary accountability, you need, first, a Government with a clear mandate. This Government do not have a mandate. They were not elected by the people; they were elected by six people in a closed room without consultation of the electorate. Nor do they have an agreed programme. There is no constitutional coalition manifesto; we have a mysterious document called the coalition agreement. Is that not a reinvention of the constitution much to our damage?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I completely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, in almost everything he said. He does not have a long enough memory. There have not been many coalitions, but the whole point about the Government is that they are made up of whoever controls the majority in another place, and the coalition clearly does that.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, in the interests of accountability, would the Government consider attaching where appropriate measurable numerical targets to legislation—for example, numeracy and literacy targets to legislation affecting primary schools?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we in this Government have been trying to get away from targets. I am not entirely certain what point the noble Lord was trying to make, but perhaps I could look again at his question and, if I can think of a better answer, I will write to him.

[Lord Taylor of Blackburn]

My Lords, the Leader of the House was telling us how much he appreciated the Opposition being very good in this Parliament. Does he not realise that the Opposition could be much better if we had a Speaker with power who could call Members to speak?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the reason I thought the Opposition were doing so well is that out of 24 Divisions, the Government have lost six. We have been defeated in 25 per cent. That is why I think they are doing a very good job. I remember the Opposition of the 1980s and 1990s, when the Labour Party here was considerably smaller. They did a very good job then, which leads me to believe that Labour really is very good in opposition and is probably better in opposition than in government.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, is there much point in Parliament trying to hold the Government to account when the Government themselves are largely controlled from Brussels?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I had a feeling that the noble Lord was heading that way. Whatever the realities of the relationship between this Parliament and Europe, what is of primary importance to this Government is that Parliament itself is in a fit state to scrutinise the Government.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, my noble friend was very welcoming and supportive of the idea of parliamentary control of government, which I am sure we all welcome. Will he bear in mind that this enthusiasm is common in every incoming Opposition and cools in the first 18 months, so can he get on with it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend, with his long experience, is almost certainly right. The basic principle of parliamentary accountability of the Executive is an important one that we should never let go lightly.