Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, effectively accuses this side of the House of procedural malpractice, he might care to consider that the coalition is introducing radical proposals for constitutional reform without any authority to do so from the electors. He might also care to consider that the Bill comes to us from the other place with very important parts of it entirely unexamined, both in Committee and on Report. Against that background, perhaps he would accept that it is the duty of the Opposition to scrutinise this legislation exhaustively.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, we are in danger of having a rerun of Second Reading: let us not to do that. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for what he said. I completely agree with much, although not all, of it. He spotted that the Motion before us is defective and would not do what the noble Baroness intends. I am glad that he confirmed that, if there is a vote, he will not be able to support the Motion. I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, who spoke extremely well, and my noble friend Lord Tyler, who made some important points about the Bill, some of which I will return to.
Most Peers came here to attend the Committee on the Bill. Instead, we have had yet another procedural device. I am not questioning the motives of the noble Baroness. I am sure that she believes that it should be two Bills rather than one. However, to put that Motion now gives the impression that noble Lords opposite do not want to engage in the proper debate in Committee that I hope we will have in a moment.
Noble Lords opposite do huff and puff rather too much. Only a few months ago, earlier this year, we had the previous Government’s Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. Noble Lords opposite will remember that legislation joyously. It included provisions on no fewer than 13 different subjects ranging from a referendum on the alternative vote to freedom of information, the removal of hereditary peers and the ratification of treaties. Not one Peer opposite—including the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—jumped up with great outrage about how wrong it was to do that. It was not wrong then, and it is not wrong now.
Lord Strathclyde
No, please—I did not want to tempt the noble Baroness to her feet for more outrage.
Noble Lords opposite also sought to progress that legislation with unseemly haste. Was that politically expedient? I cannot possibly guess their original motive. So it is somewhat surprising to hear it suggested today that a referendum on the alternative vote merits a stand-alone Bill. If our Bill is a car crash, their Bill was a multiple pile-up.
My noble friend Lord McNally and I made it clear during the Second Reading that there are compelling reasons why the Bill before the House takes the form that it does—as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I am sure knows. The two parts of the Bill are fundamentally related: both concern how MPs are elected to another place. Together, they concern arrangements for the next general election in 2015, and as such merit consideration in the round, as a package. It would not make sense to prioritise reform of the voting system while leaving the fundamental unfairness in constituencies untouched. Nor would it make sense to tackle unfair boundaries but deny the public the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the voting system—something that noble Lords opposite promised in their own manifesto.
It is simply not the case that the referendum can be separated from the boundary reviews, which can then be scrutinised at leisure. Current boundaries in England are 10 years out of date, and it is not unreasonable that they should not be 15 years out of date at the next election. The Boundary Commission must be allowed to get on with its reviews so that there is time for proper consultation on boundary recommendations and all concerned are given an adequate period to prepare for a general election on the new constituency boundaries.
The measures in the Bill were foreshadowed in our coalition agreement. They form the key plank in our commitment to reform this country’s political system, having been endorsed in another place.
Baroness Corston
My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that he is wrong in one of the assertions he makes? Many parliamentary constituency boundaries were changed in 2005—my previous one in particular.
Lord Strathclyde
All of them may not be out of date, but many are. We are going to put that fundamental unfairness right. Surely the noble Lords opposite are not supporting the continuation of unfairness.
A couple of weeks ago this House gave the Bill a Second Reading. I believe that, in doing so, the House accepted its general principles and indeed its overall architecture. The House accepted it as one Bill. We are due to go into Committee on the Bill, in its entirety, this afternoon. Some noble Lords have put down amendments to the Bill. That is the normal way that we go about scrutinising legislation in this House. The instruction tabled by the noble Baroness would pre-empt that scrutiny process. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, having heard this short debate, and having made her point, will now withdraw the Motion.
Baroness McDonagh
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I would like to refer to a couple of the points. I say to noble Lords opposite that the Motion would not discard Part 2 of the Bill and that every bit of work done up to now would remain. It would simply allow us the opportunity to have proper scrutiny.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: please do not tell us that we do not wish to debate the Bill. When we were debating it, there was not one Conservative Member on the Benches opposite. The Motion is a genuine and constructive attempt to make both Bills work, and I am sorry that the Government have not seen it as such. I think that it would make it much easier to pass the legislation, but I will not be pressing it to a vote. However, I make it clear that, like many other Back-Benchers, I will not take criticism or be harried for fully discharging our responsibility to scrutinise the legislation properly. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, we have had a good and very important debate for precisely the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Everyone agrees that there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny, no White Paper and no public consultation. What my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours is saying is this: yes, let us have a referendum on an alternative vote system—no doubt he would say that we should have it within a specified period—but, before it, let us work out what the best alternative vote system is. He identifies three systems, or perhaps four. The first is the one used in Queensland, Australia. You do not have to use all your votes; you can use just one. He pointed to the fact that sometimes three-quarters of those who vote do not use anything other than their first vote. He then pointed to the federal system in Australia, where you have to use all your votes. The noble Lord, Lord Deben—I am sorry, the artist formerly know as John Selwyn Gummer—pointed to the fact that that gives rise to difficulties. The third system my noble friend cited is that used in the London mayoral elections, where you identify the top two, and then all the second preferences are distributed between number one and number two.
All of those are alternative vote systems. Which is best? I have no idea. The one that the Government have adopted—I know not why; they have not said—is the one used in Queensland. Is it right that we put before the British people a scheme that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, describes as the worst? He says it is the worst, for reasons I do not properly understand, and he hopes that that will lead to the rejection of the alternative vote system.
If we are going to change the constitution, we need a plausible process, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave. There needs to be some thought given to what is the best alternative vote system if there is to be a referendum. The idea that the nation has to accept what was agreed over those five days as the only one is—with the greatest respect to the coalition—arrogant. I understand politics, but people can say no to politics as the reason for something happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has thrown a sharp light on the consequences of trying to carry out a constitutional change as a piece of politics, like this. The right thing to do is to have a process by which there would be proper consideration of which of the AV systems is the best. As I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggests, a commission of inquiry should be set up. It would report to Parliament and, in the light of the report, Parliament would then, by a resolution, decide which of the alternative vote systems to put to the public in a referendum. In this way it would capture what the coalition wants to do, but it would do it in a plausible and sensible way, and we would not be steam-rollered into doing it in a way for which we have no explanation.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
The noble and learned Lord is accusing the Government of not having careful thought and of being outrageous, yet only a few months ago he supported the Labour Party manifesto, which had at its core support for AV.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
We lost. In those circumstances, I do not think that relying on what we did justifies you doing the wrong thing.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I never voted in relation to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. I assume the system was the one that is now being put forward.
If we do not have a proper, independent debate—which I believe will carry much more weight with the public—then we have to have the debate here as to which is the right system. It is a distressing aspect of this debate, but inevitably when we raise such issues, instead of the other side engaging with the issues, we get the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, appearing to say to the Cross Benches—I have not read Hansard yet, which I will check—“If you vote in favour of procedural manoeuvre, it’ll be 100 per cent elected”. What conclusion are we supposed to draw from that? Then the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, appeared to say, “We have debated this long enough. Let us get on with it”. Let us either debate the issues, or let us have a commission of inquiry to look into what is the right AV system in the context of a timetable, so that the AV vote will take place, but it will be on the basis of proper information. The Front Bench will support the amendment if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, puts it to a vote.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, perhaps there should be a word from this side. My noble friend Lord Deben said that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for introducing the amendment; I agree with him. I thank him for his support because he said that he did not agree with it and, as he is not in favour of referendums at all, that is a bold step. I also thank my noble friend Lord Rennard for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that it was sheer folly to go down this route without an inquiry. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that there should be an inquiry, that there are deficiencies in AV, and that other systems should be examined. All this may be true. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that later in Committee he would invite the House to vote on other systems. I do not want to encourage him to do so, but that must be the right way of dealing with these issues.
The amendment seeks an inquiry but we believe that on an issue as fundamental as voting reform the public need to be given a clear choice which will produce an equally clear result. For all the arguments that may take place about how AV works, the attraction of the approach that we have taken is that the Bill sets it out in Clause 9 and Schedule 10. Any questions about how AV works or what form of AV is proposed can be resolved by looking at the Bill. That would not be the case with these amendments and the result would therefore be a lack of clarity, voter confusion and scope for misrepresentation about the merits of the various systems during the campaign.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
As I understand the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—and we should be clear about this—the effect of the resolutions he proposes is that the Bill will then contain one system of AV upon which the public would vote. The noble Lord’s points about clarity do not bite.
Lord Strathclyde
I stand by what I say unless the noble Lord can produce further amendments reflecting how he believes the various systems of AV should be explained in the Bill. We have done so. We have done the work and we have explained in Clause 9 and Schedule 10 exactly how it works.
Lord Campbell-Savours
It is not necessary to have the AV system in the Bill: that is a matter for the inquiry to deal with.
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord’s amendments seek to determine that crucial matters relating to the referendum should be set out in an order made by the Secretary of State instead of in the Bill. How often have we heard that such issues should be debated during the course of the Bill rather than by using secondary legislation—yet here the noble Lord is arguing for secondary legislation?
The order could be made only after an inquiry had been conducted by the committee of inquiry established specifically for that purpose and would then need to be approved by affirmative resolution. This would inevitably lead to delay. It would certainly delay the 5 May referendum, possibly by a considerable period. If the amendment was carried the Bill would state that there is going to be a referendum on a matter of considerable constitutional significance but it would give no date; nor would it provide any mechanism for settling the date. Having made a firm commitment to hold the referendum next year, we would therefore be in limbo. I cannot imagine that the public would be prepared to accept that.
Quite how the process would work is unclear from the amendments. No timescale is proposed within which the committee of inquiry should report and there is no indication of who should sit on the committee. It is not clear what the extent of its powers would be nor whether its recommendations would be binding on the Government. Not only would these amendments delay a decision being made on the voting system, but they would do so unnecessarily.
The Bill’s passage through Parliament would mean that Parliament had already decided on all aspects of the Bill. Parliament is deciding on whether or not there should be a referendum on the alternative voting system and, if it passes the Bill, it should be content to let the public decide which voting system they want. The Bill offers clarity and I urge the Committee to accept it. I also urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bach
Indeed, that is what the manifesto said and—to quote my noble friend Lord Grocott—“We lost”. Yes, it was October—the noble Lord is right. It was not May though and it was not 5 May. It was October and we said six months; our amendment says between six months and 18 months, so October might well be the date but we think it is better to give more time because it provides a sensible window for an information campaign to be executed. I remind the Committee that when New Zealand changed its voting system in the early 1990s, there was a year-long information campaign. Surely it would be better to have a proper information campaign about the alternatives—the choices that are to be made—which lasts for some time and actually gets through to people, rather than to rush it through in May.
Consultation by the Electoral Commission on the referendum question revealed the extent of people’s limited knowledge of the two voting systems and how they work. That is not disparaging of the electorate. Of course it is not. As has been said in this debate, most people’s knowledge of politics is voting once a year, or less than that. If the Government are serious in their claim to seek to hand power back to people, surely it is correct that we enable the people to make informed choices. We have also to give officials and interested participants adequate time to provide this information. Our worry is that the timetable proposed by the Bill does not allow for this to happen.
I turn now to a further argument. Whether this referendum on AV is a referendum on a miserable little compromise or whether it is—as the more optimistic noble Lord, Lord McNally, insists—a battle between two great armies that will be lined up at either side of this fundamental debate, what my noble friend Lady Liddell said just now is well worth listening to. There will be public holidays and a royal wedding just on the eve of this referendum. It will be difficult enough to get people involved in the referendum even if there were no public holidays, or no royal wedding. Is it seriously thought that there will be the necessary and proper publicity before the referendum, if it is held on 5 May, with all the media interest and natural excitement about the royal wedding? It seems to us that that is further argument—though not enough on its own—to ask the Government just to think again. If they cannot give an explanation, which they have not up to now, as to why it has to be as soon as 5 May 2011 they should just reconsider. No one would criticise them if they reconsider, perhaps take a more sensible view and say that this referendum should take place after a longer period has elapsed.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, for the way that he moved his amendment. In fact, if he had stopped after about a minute he would have made some very compelling points because he said it was elegant and clear, and his amendment was. We then had a debate for nearly an hour and a half and we lost a lot of that initial clarity. He was my MP. He never bothered to canvass me, perhaps because he realised that I did not have a vote. If he and I, perhaps joined by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, were to walk down Loudoun Street in Mauchline and perhaps slip into Poosie Nansie’s—three lairds together—those who were there would be extremely suspicious and they would smell a rat if they thought that we were all on the same side, although of course we are on many things.
We have had a series of amendments. I totally accept what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about degrouping his amendments—that is within the rules. He may find that my answers are not dramatically different but we shall come to his amendments in due course.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Could the noble Lord explain how the saving has suddenly doubled? Exactly what does that involve? Why will it save so much more? That is certainly not the figure that was given to the Scottish Government. He just pulled it out of a hat without any explanation. It would be helpful if he could explain.
Lord Strathclyde
I would not dream of pulling that figure out of a hat. The figure that I have been given by the department’s advisers is £30 million across all polls. It is a substantial amount of money.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
It is well recorded that if you hold elections and a referendum on the same day there is the possibility of confusion. If by holding them on the same day there will a saving of £30 million, is the noble Lord prepared to use any of that money to ensure that the polling stations are properly staffed and a proper campaign of information is made available to the electorate, so that the confusion that was experienced in Scotland the last time this happened does not occur again across the whole of the UK?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I will come to the question of confusion in the polling booths in 2007 in a moment. The point is that, in principle, I do not believe that people will be confused by virtue of having to vote on different issues at the same time. On top of that, the referendum question—
Lord Lipsey
The noble Lord is about to move off the point, raised by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, that I want to follow up, so I am grateful to him for giving way. It is all very well to say that he got the figure of £30 million from his officials, but they previously gave a figure of £15 million. Therefore, could the noble Lord kindly put in the Library a full explanation of both figures and what they involve, so that the House can have a factual basis on which to make its judgments?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am happy to do whatever I can to bring clarity to this debate and I am happy to do what the noble Lord suggests. The saving has doubled because it is across all the polls on 5 May; £30 million is the net figure.
The referendum question is straightforward. It has been fully tested by the Electoral Commission and has been amended to incorporate its recommendations. The question will enable the electorate to understand the choice that they are being asked to make and to express their views clearly. Several noble Lords said that a national referendum will overshadow the devolved and local elections. However, having seen those elections, which noble Lords opposite experienced, I simply cannot imagine that that will be the case. There will be two different campaigns, run at different levels, over the run-up to 5 May. Given the important issues that are to be voted on at devolved and local levels, I do not see why those issues should be swept to one side simply because a national poll on a different issue will be held at the same time. I just do not believe it.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, says that there will be confusion but there is no evidence for that. There will be a national campaign and I believe that this will increase the turnout. As far as being confused on the franchise, which the noble Lord raised, the Electoral Commission will make voting eligibility utterly clear in the information that it distributes. Furthermore, polling cards will be sent to every voter saying which polls they can vote in.
Lord Campbell-Savours
On the issue of eligibility, can the noble Lord ensure that, prior to next week’s debate, we will actually have the registration figures for inner-city constituencies, an undertaking that I was given at the meeting that he attended with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the Bill team?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, if the figures can be produced, they will be produced for the noble Lord to see.
Furthermore on this question of confusion, the Electoral Commission—as my noble friend Lord Rennard pointed out—has advised that it is possible to successfully deliver these different polls on 5 May. The commission has issued briefing throughout the passage of this Bill in another place. It concluded that the Bill contains the necessary provisions for the combination of the referendum poll with the scheduled election, and says that it is satisfied that the technical issues it has identified with these provisions to date have been addressed by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, went on to explain that the system failed in the Scottish elections in 2007. I say, slightly tangentially to this when it comes to confusion, that I now live in the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for one election, I live in the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for another and I am in a third constituency for the European elections. We get used to this. It may not be ideal but, if there has ever been any confusion about different elections being voted on at different times with different systems, they are entirely decisions made by noble Lords opposite. We are not adding to the confusion.
As the noble Lord knows, there was an inquiry by Ron Gould, who at the time said that the problem in 2007 was that there were two votes on the same ballot paper. That is what confused so many people. That is not going to be the case here. Gould has, furthermore, said:
“I do not believe that the same factors which led to voter confusion and the large number of rejected ballots at the last Scottish … elections would arise if both the Parliamentary Election and the Referendum were held on the same date”.
That is an authoritative statement.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
In the interests of fully reporting Mr Gould’s position, can the Leader of the House confirm that Gould confirmed his position in evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee that he would not recommend the conduct of two ballots on the one date, given his experience in his investigation into what happened in Scotland? He has not changed his position from the recommendation. I accept that the noble Lord has quoted him but he should give the full context of what he said.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has now given that context but, equally, that he does not disagree with the quotations that I have given.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I refer the noble Lord to page 220 of the Bill:
“List of votes marked by presiding officer
32 (1) If the counting officer thinks fit, a single list of votes marked by the presiding officer may be used in respect of—
(a) votes marked on referendum ballot papers,
(b) votes marked on constituency ballot papers, and
(c) votes marked on regional ballot papers.
(2) Where a person’s entry in that list does not relate to all three kinds of ballot paper, the entry must identify each kind to which it relates”.
All of this has to be carried out during the voting process, marking on the list which ballot paper it relates to. That will take a large number of minutes for everyone who comes in, if only one list is used. Has the Leader of the House really considered this? Can he explain precisely how this will work?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, this whole process will involve negotiation, discussion and a debate which is taking place between the Electoral Commission and the various polling authorities right across the country to ensure that people can vote, have time to vote and understand the different elections in which they are voting. We do not believe—we stand by this fact—that there will be any confusion on this at all. Setting the date in legislation gives certainty to those involved in the planning and the campaigning. Moreover, if this amendment were carried, the Bill would say that there is going to be a referendum on a matter of—
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
This is a very simple point amid the complex issues that we have been discussing. Given that there is this complexity, why did the Government not consult the Scottish Government before coming to that conclusion?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, a decision was made on a national poll and to announce that to the House of Commons. That is what happened. Therefore, there was no time to have a great consultation with the Scottish Government. Mutual respect is a great idea and is something that we should always carry out, but if there was no reason not to have the referendum on 5 May, it was entirely right for the Government to make that decision and to make that announcement.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
The noble Lord is being extremely generous and I am very grateful for that, but the conclusion to which I come from the answer that he has given is that he does not trust the Scottish Government. Is that the case?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I have no idea where the noble Baroness found that; of course, it is not true. I very much respect the House of Commons and think that it was entirely right and appropriate for that announcement to be made first in the House of Commons.
Other amendments are grouped with this one, including that spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, which proposes that this process should be spread between six and 18 months. However, I have to tell him and noble Lords opposite that holding this referendum is a government priority as it is time to give the people their say on how they should elect their parliamentary representatives. That goes to the heart of the Bill and to the heart of the decision to hold this poll on 5 May. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I am in a genuine dilemma about what to do. I know that many noble Lords would like to go to dinner. The Leader of the House and I do not need to go to dinner as, like camels, we can survive for weeks on the resources that we have accumulated over the years. However, this is a serious matter. This is the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has said that he agrees with every word that I have said. That in itself must be a powerful argument for pressing this to a vote. Astonishing revelations have been made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is not present; he does need his dinner. Given what he used to feed his daughter, it is probably a rather speedy repast. He said that savings of £15 million would be made. Within an hour, the figure escalated to £30 million. That is the most astonishing escalation, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey pointed out. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, were still here as I would point out to him that a great deal more could be saved by not having the referendum at all, which is probably what most of us in this House want, and probably most in another place as well.
My noble friend Lord O’Neill put forward a convincing argument. I had forgotten to say in my introduction that the Scottish Parliament cleared the way for the Scottish vote to be a stand-alone election by moving the local government elections to a year later. That is a powerful argument. He also reminded me of the argument of contamination and how people vote in a referendum. As my noble friend said, in 1979 we lost the referendum probably because the Government were unpopular, whereas in 1997 we won probably because the Government were very popular. Tony Blair was the most popular Prime Minister in our lifetime. Contamination takes place, and that contamination will be even worse when this referendum is held.
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 7 December to allow the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, in light of the extremely unusual amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, it may be helpful if I say a few words to set out the Government’s position.
The Motion in my name seeks the agreement of the House to suspend Standing Order 46 on Tuesday 7 December to allow the remaining stages of the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill to be taken formally immediately after Second Reading. This is necessary because Standing Order 46 prevents more than one stage of a Bill being taken in any one day. This is a perfectly standard Motion for a Bill that has been certified as a money Bill by Mr Speaker in another place.
The established practice of the House in respect of money Bills is to have a Second Reading debate and then to take the remaining stages formally. Why do we do this? Because the Parliament Act 1911 restricts the powers of the House of Lords in relation to money Bills. Under that Act this House has one calendar month to pass a money Bill without amendment. If it does not do so, the Bill is given Royal Assent without the agreement of this House. If this House passes amendments, the other place, quite properly, totally disregards them if it chooses to do so. This House does not normally go into Committee on a money Bill because there is no point and successive Governments have chosen not to waste the time of the House in this way.
With the agreement of the usual channels, the Government have set aside a whole day for the Second Reading debate next week. Ultimately, it does not matter whether the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie is agreed to; it does not make any difference. We can amend the Bill, re-amend it or reject it outright, but it will become law anyway in exactly its current form. However—and this is the serious part—apparently, after 99 years of this House respecting both the spirit and the letter of the Parliament Act 1911, the Opposition feel that now is the time to change that. In nearly 100 years this House has never seen an opposition challenge to money Bill procedures under the Parliament Act. The House might forgive the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, for inexperience in such matters if he were new to the Front Bench opposite, but until just seven months ago he was a Minister of the Crown. He and his colleagues know exactly how these things should work.
Only last week the House considered two money Bills. The Opposition did not see fit to challenge the certification of Mr Speaker on those Bills. The noble Lord even responded for the Opposition on one of them. There were no Motions on the Order Paper last week—those Bills were taken through their remaining stages formally, in the normal way, after a Second Reading, with the Opposition’s agreement—so the established practice of dealing with money Bills was perfectly acceptable to the Opposition last week, but not, it seems, this week. Indeed, it is even worse than that. The way in which this House deals with money Bills was perfectly acceptable to the Opposition when they were in Government. Between 1997 and 2010, this House considered a total of 64 Bills that were certified as money Bills by Mr Speaker in the other place. Over 40 per cent of them were in the last Parliament alone. We disagreed with many of these Bills; we felt that the financial policies of the party opposite would lead the country to financial ruin, as it almost did, but how many of these Bills were taken through substantive stages after Second Reading, or were subject to a challenge from the then Opposition on grounds of process? None at all. It was not seen as this House’s way of doing things, so why is it seen as the way for us to proceed now?
There is a feeling from this side of the House of, “Here we go again”. The Opposition are clearly set on continuing their procedural mischief-making. A clear pattern has emerged. Back in June we had a Motion to refer the Local Government Bill to the Examiners, two weeks ago we had a similar Motion on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, today we have an unprecedented Motion on a money Bill, and tomorrow yet another unprecedented procedural Motion is due to appear on the Order Paper.
A few weeks ago I asked from this Dispatch Box whether the party opposite wanted to be a serious party of opposition, or whether it wanted to see the kinds of procedural ploys, wheezes and games that we see again today. The answer is becoming increasingly clear—the party opposite would prefer to manufacture time-wasting debates than to get on with the important business of the Public Bodies Bill on today’s Order Paper. They want to make this place like another place: a House that spends hour after hour on procedural debate. I have to tell the noble Lord that this vision for the House is not shared by the majority of noble Lords.
There is no issue, and there is no need to challenge the way in which this House deals with money Bills; this is nothing but an attempt at opportunism. I am sure that noble Lords will see it for what it is, and I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, this is a very difficult situation. I am totally convinced that this is not a money Bill and it is disgraceful that it is being presented as such. However, we are faced with a different problem: the certification by the Speaker that it is a money Bill. I fully agree with my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham who says that this would set an unfortunate precedent. I fully agree with those who say that this Bill deserves a proper examination in Committee. However, we are faced with a fact, which is that it has been certified as a money Bill.
We should be thinking about whether there is some way in which we can have a proper discussion—perhaps in a Joint Committee—on what a money Bill is, because that is the problem. It is open to abuse if one side says that this is a money Bill and the other side says it is not. We need to have a proper discussion of what a money Bill is and get it settled once and for all.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it might be useful if I added a few thoughts from the Government Front Bench. I totally respect all of those who spoke in favour of the Bill and those who had problems on issues with the Bill. At some moments it sounded as if we had already started the Second Reading of the Bill rather than dealing with the Motion on the Order Paper. I have no detailed view on the different aspects of the Bill. The right time to deal with those would be on Second Reading.
The point in my introduction was made—if I may say so—far more ably by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It does not matter if we have this Committee stage. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, we can explore, we can advise, we can amend, we can even reject, and we can ask the House of Commons to think again. The House of Commons is under no obligation whatever to deal with any of these issues. That is the nub of my argument. There is no point doing any of these things because it is a waste of our time. Let us spend our precious time on things that are useful and have an impact rather than on those that do not. I have very little further to add and in light of what I and others have said, I call upon the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Richard
My Lords, it is quite clear—to me at any rate—that there is a genuine issue here. One could argue whether the Speaker should or should not have certified it. The fact is that he did certify it and, therefore, certain consequences flow from that, which I accept. However, the danger as it is perceived, certainly by me, and, I suspect, by many on this side, is that that certification will become too gross, happen too often and be too restrictive as far as this House is concerned.
This issue is important in relation to this Bill. However, it is even more important in relation to a whole host of other Bills coming up. If one wishes to certify something as a money Bill, you can invariably find some excuse for doing so, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said. There is no point in the noble Lord shaking his head. He knows that as well as I do. So I ask him very simply: can he put his considerable weight behind an attempt to get some clarification on what is or is not a money Bill by negotiations or discussions between this House and the other place? Otherwise, we will have this issue coming up again and again, which would be extraordinarily unhealthy.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My question is very much along the same lines. It goes to the root of the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Is she right when she says that the mere fact of a Bill involving public expenditure makes it possible for it to be certified as a money Bill? If that is so, then it is extremely serious and of massive constitutional relevance.
Is it then the case—I do not have the wording of the 1911 Act before me—that since 1911 it has been a matter of restraint not to certify possibly thousands of Bills that might have been money Bills but for good reason have not been so regarded? Am I right in thinking that although the 1911 Act very considerably curtails the effect of any amendment made by this House, there is not one word in it that suggests that we should not discuss a money Bill?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, that is precisely why the Government have allocated a whole day for discussion and debate on this Bill. There will be a very full Second Reading day on it, especially given this debate. It is right that this House’s voice should be heard, but it cannot be heard more than the Parliament Act 1911 allows. This is so well precedented over the past 99 years that even I, who like history and historical anecdotage in the House of Lords, find this whole debate extraordinary.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord asked about the Speaker’s role in all this. Parliament Acts are a long-standing part of the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom. Under the Parliament Act 1911, Mr Speaker is under a statutory duty to certify a Bill a money Bill if, in his opinion, it contains provisions dealing with national taxation, public money, loans or their management. The important words there are “a statutory duty”. It is not a choice; Mr Speaker has no discretion in the matter. That goes to answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who gave the impression that somehow there was discretion in this matter, and that I could say to the Speaker, “On balance, old boy, could you certify rather fewer money Bills?”. That is not the case. It is done on advice given by Mr Speaker’s Clerks on the basis of a statutory provision. The decision to certify this Bill a money Bill is taken entirely by Mr Speaker in another place. We accept the consequences of that because of the 1911 Act and all the precedents that have been set over the past 100 years. In my opening speech, I talked about the 60-odd money Bills that have arisen in the past 13 years. The outrage on the part of noble Lords opposite is extraordinary given that, seven months ago, they were sitting on this side of the House but never once did they scratch their heads and say, “These money Bills are a bit odd. We really should repeal the 1911 Act”.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I do not dispute the fact that, when in government, we issued a number of Bills that were money Bills; I think the noble Lord said that there were 30. However, the difference is that we knew that a Bill had been certified a money Bill before it ended its legislative process in the House of Commons. Can the noble Lord tell me the last occasion on which a Bill was certified a money Bill at the very end of its legislative process in the House of Commons? That is a big distinction, as the House of Commons understood that this Bill would go through all its legislative process in this Chamber.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am very happy to answer questions on this from other noble Lords as well, if they so wish. However, I find it very difficult to help the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. It is as if noble Lords assume that I had greater knowledge than I have of what decisions were being taken in another place on the certification of money Bills, or when the decision was taken. My understanding is that it is a decision not of the Government but of Mr Speaker, taken on advice from his Clerks. I dare say that the stage at which he makes that decision is up to the internal procedures of another place. The point about this House is that we have to deal with the effects of the decision that has been taken in another place. We have no discretion in the matter. If it is certified a money Bill, a money Bill it is. If it is a money Bill, whatever we do to it matters not a jot because another place can ignore that comprehensively.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Will the noble Lord ensure, not just as leader of the government party, but as Leader of the whole House, that future legislation, such as social security legislation, will not come up here with the imprimatur that means that we cannot discuss disability issues and the like?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is very hard to answer that question as Leader of the whole House without looking back in the mists of time at the reasons for the 1911 Act. The reason we have had the privilege of dealing with monetary and taxation legislation is in the history of 100 years ago. With the best will in the world, I have no intention of reopening that any more than any of my predecessors have done over the last 99 years.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I suppose it was because Mr Speaker was not advised by his Clerks that it was a money Bill. If it had been a money Bill, we would have disposed of it rather more quickly than we did.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this debate has been interesting, but mostly not about the substance of the amendment that was moved. Most noble Lords, I think, were exercised about the definition of a money Bill. I made clear when I moved my amendment that, except for the purposes of the amendment, it has been certified a money Bill, and I do not seek to challenge that, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, suggested.
On the definition of a money Bill, the preamble to the bit about taxation et cetera talks about measures that contain “only provisions dealing with” certain issues. One of the points that arise from this particular example is whether the ability to corral a few things that are only about taxation, and not to have them as you might naturally otherwise have them—as part of a broader Bill—opens up the possibility of getting more money Bills certified than would otherwise be the case. However, I agree with the range of speakers—the noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Grenfell and Lord Elystan-Morgan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—who say that it would be good to have some sort of process to try and better understand when a money Bill is a money Bill and what the rules are that apply to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that this is all a waste of time and that it is pointless, but if he read the 2007 version of the Companion, he would see that paragraph 7.189, on money Bills, says:
“On a few occasions minor amendments have been made by the Lords to such bills and have been accepted by the Commons”.
This presumption that it is all a waste of time, that nothing could ever happen that could change the Bill, is simply not the case. Even if it were, if it was felt that matters should be pressed on the Government in relation to a Bill, why should we not avail ourselves of the opportunity to do so? I stress that my amendment does not seek to change the rules at all or to say that the House of Commons Speaker was wrong in certifying it as a money Bill; it merely seeks to take advantage of what the Companion enables us to do as a House.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that she did not understand if this did not lead anywhere. In any event—this is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as well—we will have a full day on a Second Reading debate. However, there is a difference between a debate on the Bill at Second Reading and in Committee, as all noble Lords know. The Committee stage is an iterative process, a chance to press the Minister in detail on a range of points. A one-day Second Reading does not provide the same facility. It provides an opportunity for some broad debate but not for the detailed scrutiny that we believe this Bill requires.
As ever, my noble friend Lady Hollis got it absolutely right; if we do not take this opportunity to try to secure at least a Committee stage on this money Bill, what hope is there for dealing with a raft of very profound provisions coming down the track that the Government would corral in such a way that the Speaker would designate them money Bills?
I believe that the Deputy Chief Whip wishes to speak.
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Young of Graffham set down for today shall be limited to 3½ hours and that in the name of Viscount Bridgeman to 1½ hours.
Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the draft Orders and Regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 9, Clauses 7 to 19, Schedules 1 to 8, Schedules 10 and 11.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. It may be helpful if I give the House a brief explanation because it replaces a Motion that had been tabled and was due to be agreed yesterday. However, following constructive discussions earlier this week with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Government withdrew the original Order of Consideration Motion on the Bill, and we have now come forward with the revised Order of Consideration Motion before the House today. The noble and learned Lord made the case that the revised order of consideration would be for the benefit of the House as a whole in structuring discussion on the Bill and would help to speed its passage. I was happy to agree and I am sure that the whole House will be receptive to these propositions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I express my gratitude to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his constructive approach to this. The revised Motion will help the constructive discussion of the Bill, which will require the responsible scrutiny that I know the House will give it. That scrutiny will necessarily be long, but I am sure that it will be worth while.
NATO Summit
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to repeat a Statement on NATO which the Prime Minister has made this afternoon in another place. The Statement is as follows.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the NATO summit in Lisbon. No one can doubt that NATO has played a critical role in preserving peace in Europe since it was founded in 1949. But the test for NATO now is whether it can meet the challenges of the present and future. That means real change—not just signing communiqués about change but showing real political will to bring those changes about.
I believe that NATO can be just as relevant for protecting our security in the future as it has been in the past and my interventions were focused on that future. There were effectively three summits: a meeting of all the coalition countries involved in Afghanistan, a summit on the planned reform of NATO and a NATO-Russia council. Let me take each in turn.
The first is Afghanistan. The summit with President Karzai, the UN Secretary-General and countries from across the world is a powerful visual reminder that Britain is part of an international coalition of 48 nations in Afghanistan. We are there because the Afghans are not yet capable of securing their own country from terrorists and these terrorists threaten the whole world. So it is for our own national security that we help them.
At the NATO summit, each and every one of the 48 nations in the coalition reaffirmed its ‘enduring commitment’ to the mission in Afghanistan. Britain is the second-largest contributor to that mission, with more than 10,000 troops risking their lives in the most dangerous parts of the country. The arrival of additional ISAF troops in the south has allowed us to transfer Musa Qala and Sangin to the US Marines. That, in turn, has allowed us to focus our forces in central Helmand, sharing the burden more sensibly and removing the overstretch our forces have suffered since 2006. Working alongside Afghan forces, this has helped us to drive the insurgents out of population centres in central Helmand.
We want to transfer security responsibility for districts and provinces to Afghan control as soon as the Afghan security forces are ready. The summit reached important conclusions about the timetable for this transition. It will begin in early 2011 and meet President Karzai’s objective for the Afghan national security forces to lead and conduct security operations in all provinces by the end of 2014. This commitment on transition is entirely consistent with the deadline of 2015 that we have set for the end of British combat operations in Afghanistan.
By 2015, Britain will have played a huge role in the international coalition and made massive sacrifices for a better, safer and stronger Afghanistan. We will have been in Helmand, by some way the toughest part of Afghanistan, for nine years, a period almost as long as the First and Second World Wars combined. Last week, we lost the 100th member of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan this year. This is the second year running that we have reached such a tragic milestone. The bravery and sacrifice of our forces is making this country safe. But having taken such a huge share of the burden and having performed so magnificently since 2001, the country needs to know that there is an endpoint to all this. So, from 2015, there will not be troops in anything like the numbers there are now, and crucially, they will not be in a combat role. That is a firm commitment and a firm deadline which we will meet.
The NATO summit also committed to a long-term relationship with the Government of Afghanistan, and Britain will be at the forefront of this commitment. Beyond the end of combat operations in 2015, we will go on having a relationship with Afghanistan based on aid, development, diplomacy, trade and, if necessary, military training and support.
On the reform of NATO, we agreed a new strategic concept to equip NATO for the security challenges of the 2lst century. Just as in our new national security strategy, NATO will shift its focus and resources still further from the old, Cold Wars of the past to the new unconventional threats of the future, including counterterrorism, cybersecurity, failing states and the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Crucially, NATO agreed to develop a new ballistic missile defence system for Europe. This will help protect the UK and our other European allies from the growing threat from countries like Iran which are developing ballistic missiles. It will be in place by the end of the decade, paid for within NATO’s existing resources.
And just as Britain’s strategic defence and security review set out plans to make the Ministry of Defence much more commercially hard-headed in future, and to adopt a much more aggressive drive for efficiencies, so this summit has agreed significant efficiencies for NATO. These include cutting the number of command posts from 13,000 to less than 9,000, reducing the number of NATO agencies from 14 to three, and ensuring that all decisions taken at this summit are funded from within NATO’s existing resource plans. These changes will save Britain tens of millions of pounds and will allow NATO to focus its efforts on the front line.
There was also discussion at the summit on co-operation between the EU and NATO. It is crazy that, because of procedural wrangling, the only security issue these two organisations can discuss when they meet together is Bosnia. Everyone wants a solution to the Cyprus problem, but we simply should not allow it to go on holding up practical co-operation between the EU and NATO.
It was a very powerful sight to see countries which came together to protect themselves from the Soviet Union now sitting down and discussing sensible co-operation with Russia. And while the Soviet Union broke up years ago, relations between NATO and Russia had been strained in recent years. Two years ago, missile defence for Europe caused a major split in relations with Russia. Now, it is an issue on which we are working together. The NATO-Russia council also agreed practical co-operation on Afghanistan, enabling NATO to use routes through Russia to support our forces on the ground and working together to develop and sustain improved helicopter capabilities for the Afghan security forces.
There will remain challenges in working with Russia. President Obama and I both raised Georgia. Two years after that conflict started, it is time for Russia to abide by the ceasefire agreement and withdraw its troops from Georgian territory. But I judge it right that we do not let this and other bilateral concerns prevent us from working together where it is in our interests to do so. So we will work with Russia on countering drug trafficking, on tackling Islamic extremism, on countering proliferation and in the G8 and G20. The summit also praised the courage that President Obama and President Medvedev have shown in agreeing a new START treaty and agreed that early ratification would be in all our interests.
In 1949, the alliance first said that an attack against one is an attack against all. Today, the threats that we face are different and the world is more uncertain but NATO remains the bedrock of our collective defence. The future of this alliance is vital for our own national security. This summit was focused on that future; on securing an Afghanistan able to look after its own security, reforming NATO for the 21st century, and establishing co-operation with Russia on our vital security interests. Above all, this summit has shown that our alliance remains rock solid and that Britain's commitment to it is as strong as ever. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her constructive approach to this Statement and for her warm words and best wishes for continued co-operation not just with our NATO allies but particularly with Russia. Those of us who witnessed developments over the weekend felt that the summit was a great step forward in the building of that relationship in particular.
I thank the noble Baroness also for beginning with a tribute to those who have served and for a very personal tribute to those who have been injured. I sometimes feel that we concentrate too much on the number of those who have died. There are also those who have come back, some of them with terrible injuries, and we must do everything we can to make sure that they live a full life back in the United Kingdom.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she and her party support the 2015 end date for combat missions. It was important to us to have set that end date, and the support of the Opposition is much appreciated. The noble Baroness asked questions about our timetable and milestones. The whole purpose for us giving a timetable is to maximise the pressure on the ground to be able to do the area-by-area, district-by-district transfer of power from coalition forces to the Afghan army. We will have to see how that develops over the course of the next two years. However, I am hopeful that, even next year, we will see a gradual start of a reduction of combat forces of British troops in Afghanistan. The noble Baroness also asked a question about post-2015 training. I can confirm that it is the intention where required that British troops will still be available to help train the army, the security forces and the police in Afghanistan. I cannot say exactly what their role would be if they came under attack but it is not the intention for these troops to be used in any way as on the front line. The intention is to train the Afghan troops to deal with any problems they encounter themselves.
I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness on reconciliation. We have always said that there is no sole military solution to what is happening in Afghanistan. There needs to be a process of reconciliation. We very much support what President Karzai has said about his willingness to reach out to all of his countrymen, provided that they cut ties with al-Qaeda and violence, and pursue their aims peacefully within Afghanistan’s constitutional framework. We believe that that is the right approach.
Turning to Russia and Russian relations, I am glad that the noble Baroness was able to welcome the new strategic concept and missile defence. On the question of removing tactical nuclear weapons, as the strategic concept makes clear, the greatest responsibility of the alliance is to protect and defend our territory against attack. Deterrence based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities remains a core element of NATO’s overall strategy. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. The UK’s national nuclear deterrent is assigned to the defence of all nations in NATO in accordance with our NATO Article 5 obligations.
This summit was an important step forward. I hope that I have covered all the questions raised by the noble Baroness. If there are any that I have missed, I will follow up in writing.
Lord Jopling
My Lords, although it must be right that we do not let bilateral concerns prevent us from working closely with Russia, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that, at all costs, we must not reduce pressure on Russia with regard to Georgia and the continued occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which the Russians justify by the absurd suggestions that those are two independent states? We must keep up our pressure on that.
Secondly, with regard to the START treaty, again it is welcome that the summit agreed that early ratification would be in all our interests. Will the Government do everything they can to encourage all members of NATO to make those views known in the United States where the President is currently experiencing some unfortunate difficulties with the Congress?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, on that last point, not only is START important, it is vital to our interests. So I can respond positively and say, yes, we will encourage all members of NATO to make representations to make sure that that treaty is ratified.
On the question of Georgia, I agree with my noble friend that it is still an outstanding and difficult issue. We will not do anything to make Russia believe that this is not still an important issue for us. There are a number of other bilateral issues as well. However, we also believe that we should not allow those to hold up these very important talks and the summit. That is why we have gone ahead with them. My noble friend should not be overly concerned, however, that we have forgotten the plight of Georgia; we have not.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, we have come a long way since President Reagan’s star wars concept and President Bush’s proposal for interceptors in Poland and radar installations in the Czech Republic. That is an important matter, as is the improvement in relations with Russia two years since the conflict in Georgia. The Minister said that Russia should withdraw from Georgia, but is that not a pipe dream given the evidence that Russia is militarising part of Abkhazia on the Black Sea? What is being demanded by Russia on missile defence? What will be the decision-making process? Will Russia have some form of veto over the intercepts? Equally, what is being said about Georgia and Ukraine’s membership of NATO? As a result of the agreement, have we decided to put back very indefinitely the applications of Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO? What, if any, movement was there at the summit on the “frozen conflicts”?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am not aware that the last aspect of the noble Lord’s question was discussed. On his key point that the whole situation vis-à-vis Georgia is a pipe dream, we do not share that view and we believe that to be unduly pessimistic. Obviously, discussions are ongoing. In 2008, NATO and the UK condemned Russian military action in the break-away territories. Two years on, Russian troops remain in both separatist regions in considerably higher numbers than before the war. The UK Government strongly support the Geneva talks, which remain the only forum in which all parties to that conflict meet and which help to keep open the prospect of addressing unresolved security and humanitarian issues. We firmly believe that Russia should respect the territorial integrity of Georgia and other states as well as international law and human rights. That is why we call on all parties to play a constructive role in the continued efforts to resolve the conflict. Others may well have argued that we should have used the Georgia talks not to make progress on the greater issue, but that is not the view that we took. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, Georgia is not an issue that we have forgotten.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Will the Minister accept my thanks for the Prime Minister’s expression of impatience about the blockage in the relationship between the EU and NATO? That blockage has gone on for far too long, so I am not surprised that he is impatient about it. Does the Prime Minister, or the noble Lord, discern any indication that those who have been causing this blockage—on one side Turkey and on the other side Cyprus—are thinking of changing their tune? If not, will we deploy our efforts to persuade them to do so?
Secondly, will the noble Lord respond to the question put by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition about tactical nuclear weapons in Europe? While not disputing for one minute what he said in reply about the alliance maintaining the appropriate mix of conventional weapons and strategic nuclear weapons, I do not think that that is the same as working for the removal of tactical nuclear weapons from both sides in Europe. Will the Government support that process—of course, that will require co-operation from the Russian side, too—in the NATO committee that has been set up to look at that? Will the British Government put their weight behind that?
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right to refer to the Prime Minister’s impatience on the issue of EU-NATO talks. On how we will take those matters forward and whether we can expect some progress, the summit declaration calls on the NATO Secretary-General and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, to present proposals for progress before the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in April next year. Ultimate resolution of the EU-NATO impasse is likely to require a settlement in Cyprus, but we believe that practical co-operation can be improved in an incremental and sustainable way, led by Mr Rasmussen and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. We are working with NATO allies, EU partners, Mr Rasmussen and the noble Baroness to ensure that this happens. The point about this is that there is a fundamental change of view, or focus, on this issue, which I very much hope will bear fruit.
I have nothing more to add in response to the noble Lord’s extra question about tactical nuclear weapons. Perhaps it is something that I could follow up in a letter.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, there is clearly much to welcome in this Statement, particularly the greater co-operation with Russia. I have two questions of detail. First, on the drive for greater efficiency within NATO, the cutting of a number of command posts and the reduction of a number of agencies, is there any agreed timescale for those reductions? Secondly, on the question of the additional routes through Russia to support our forces on the ground in Afghanistan, particularly given the attacks on convoys through the Khyber Pass, is the increase in the number of routes significant? Is less fuel and equipment going to come in through Pakistan? Could my noble friend elaborate a little on this whole question?
Lord Strathclyde
First, on the question of reducing the number of command posts, the announcement was this weekend, and the intention is that the drive for efficiency should start at once. I believe that we will see progress within a few months. It is important that we should keep the pressure on and that progress should be made. Secondly, the important agreement with Russia that we should have a new overland route for convoys and other aspects of military support is extremely welcome. I cannot add any more to what I have already said on that, and it may not be possible to do so at this stage.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, first, I apologise to noble Lords and to the Leader of the House for not being present at the beginning of this Statement. I am finding it difficult to adjust to the rhythm of the business in this House.
In welcoming this Statement broadly, I press the Leader of the House on one specific issue. On 19 October, on the publication of the strategic security and defence review, following a review of the declaratory policy for nuclear weapons, the Government made a very welcome announcement that they would give assurances to non-nuclear weapon states in broad compliance with their NPT obligations that they would not use nuclear weapons against them. That was broadly welcomed in this House and beyond and brought us into line with the United States. However, in the strategic concept, that assurance is absent from statements on the use of NATO nuclear weapons. Can the noble Lord explain to the House how that came about, as our nuclear weapons and those of the United States are assigned to NATO? We now have two descriptions of when we will use these weapons which are contradictory. Can we expect the Government to press for alignment of declaratory policy in the process that has been signposted in the strategic concept of a further review?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord has my sympathy about his having a little difficulty in getting to grips with the rhythm of business, but I am sure that he will get used to it. He is a good attendee, and I am sure that that will happen very soon.
The thrust of the noble Lord’s question is that there is a tension between declared UK government policy on states that do not hold nuclear weapons and that of the strategic concept launched this week by NATO, which does not hold such a position. I do not know whether this tension is cosmetic or real, and I am unable to resolve that at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps I could consider the issue and give a little more thought to it before responding to the noble Lord.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for this Statement and for this early opportunity to talk about the NATO summit in the light of the strategic defence and security review. The question I want to ask has been focused by those who have raised issues about Georgia. Earlier this year, I was fortunate enough to have a meeting with Giorgi Bokeria, the Deputy Foreign Minister in Georgia. It was, I would say, a combative engagement. He was sharp and intelligent. He was critical of the western nations’ response but he was a realist. The point he was really making was that it was not that he expected us somehow to come and invade Russia with him, but that he expected us to be a little clearer on what we were prepared to do in response.
This brings me around to the strategic concept as we now see it. That now has three sections in it, which are about corporate security, crisis intervention and co-operative security. One of the issues in past years has been—we see this in Afghanistan in particular—that crisis intervention and corporate security can stretch the resources of NATO, putting us in a position where it is difficult to know precisely how we move forward. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government are confident that, with the new strategic concept, we can respond effectively in each of those three ways and be clear that we have a response to the sort of questions that the Deputy Foreign Minister was putting to me?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I understand very much the position that the right reverend Prelate found himself in when talking to those who have a clear government interest within Georgia. I, too, have met and discussed the situation with Georgians who feel strongly about it—unsurprisingly, if I may say so. However, like the right reverend Prelate, I have found Georgians with whom I have spoken have a realistic understanding of the West’s role, which is why in answer to an earlier question—I think it was from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—I explained the case of the Geneva talks. That is the best place to resolve these issues, because all those most affected by them are represented in those talks.
The right reverend Prelate also asked whether I was confident that we can deal with our objectives in NATO and that the new strategic concept can deal with them. I am bound to say yes we are. We feel that this is an important step forward, not least in that the summit included so many different countries that are not officially members of NATO but are either supporting us in Afghanistan or, as the Russians themselves did, were playing such an important and distinguished role in the conclusions of this summit.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
My Lords, while we must always keep up the military pressure in Afghanistan, is it not the case that, now that we have established a deadline of 2015 for the end of combat operations by NATO forces, the weight of our activities should shift to finding a political solution? If that is, as I believe, the policy of the United Kingdom Government, what steps will they take to ensure that Washington is persuaded that it should be their policy too?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ashdown is right. We have long said that the solution to the conflict in Afghanistan is not military. There has to be more to it, combining politics within Afghanistan itself with the support of aid, trade and all the other things that make up creating and building up a country in the modern world. I would not read it as such a difference between our own objectives and those of the United States. In fact, our objectives are not far away from those of NATO and, this weekend, there is an aspirational target for NATO to have achieved the end of conflict by 2014. The fact that we have taken this position on 2015 will not be missed by other countries, which will be asking their own leaders whether it is appropriate that they too should set a similar target.
Lord King of Bridgwater
Will the Minister reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Ashdown, in his perceptive article in the Times today, that if we are to honour the tremendous sacrifice of many of our young men who have committed themselves to the future of Afghanistan, the need for urgency in the political drive is critical? The countries that need to be involved in this undertaking—Britain, India, Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia—all have their own angle and their own interests in what might happen there. Who is really going to drive this forward? Every one of those countries has an interest and will be disappointed if the conflict there turns into civil war. Who is going to reconcile the situation and drive the political initiative forward?
Lord Strathclyde
In the first instance, my Lords, it will be NATO, supported by its key members. My noble friend is right in mentioning all the countries that have a direct interest, including the people of Afghanistan itself. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have all been clear, including the Afghanistan Government, that members of the Taliban and many other groups who want to talk, to play a part in government and to be part of the process of reconciliation are the ones who need to renounce violence, reject al-Qaeda and support the constitutional framework. It is in all our interests that that should be so.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, I welcome the reference in the Statement to failing states. Is there any further information that the Minister can provide on the discussions that took place with reference to the importance of failing states to NATO’s overall security position? Might action to help rebuild and reconstruct failing states be one of those areas where there could be more detailed co-operation in future between the European Union and NATO? Was that issue discussed at the summit, or might it be part of the discussions that will lead up to the Foreign Ministers’ meeting in April?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am sure that, on closer examination of the final communiqué, I would be able to find some reference to the subject of failing states. I know that that is an important issue for the noble Lord, and he is right to raise it. That was not the primary purpose of the summit, though; as we have been discussing over the past few minutes, that was to deal with the issue of the new strategic concept and with Afghanistan as well as rebasing the relationship with Russia. Just because these issues were not of primary importance, however, does not mean that they are not in themselves important. NATO is as keen as the rest of us to sort out these problems.
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Greaves set down for today shall be limited to one and three quarter hours and that in the name of Lord Maclennan of Rogart to three and a quarter hours.
Regional Development Agencies
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am afraid that Question Time has gone on rather long. We have reached 30 minutes and must move to the next business.
Royal Engagement
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to report to the House the announcement made by Clarence House this morning, which I am sure many of your Lordships will have already heard, of the engagement of Prince William to Miss Catherine Middleton. I understand that the wedding is due to take place in spring or summer of next year. I am sure that the House will wish to have an opportunity in due course to convey a more formal message to Her Majesty the Queen. In the mean time, your Lordships will, I know, wish to join me in conveying our heartfelt congratulations and every good wish to Prince William and Kate Middleton.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that very brief Statement. I realise that there will be time in due course for official tributes but, for now, I just wish Prince William and Miss Kate Middleton the warmest and heartiest congratulations from these Benches also.