Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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(13 years, 7 months 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(13 years, 7 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 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(13 years, 7 months 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(13 years, 7 months 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.
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 7 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 Monday 22 November and Wednesday 24 November to allow the Finance (No. 2) Bill and the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill to be taken through all their remaining stages on those days.
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with today to allow the adjourned debate on the second reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill to be taken after the motion in the name of Lord Strathclyde.
Interim Report: Leader's Group on Members Leaving the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That this House takes note of the Interim Report from the Leader’s Group on Members leaving the House (HL Paper 48).
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I am delighted to open this short debate today on the interim report of the Leader’s Group, which was chaired admirably by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. The group was established in July with the terms of reference,
“to identify options for allowing members to leave the House of Lords permanently”.
The group has consulted widely and today’s debate provides a further opportunity for consultation. I look forward this afternoon to hearing the views of those noble Lords who will be speaking and I am sure that other noble Lords who read the official record will write in with their views.
We should begin by rehearsing the context of today’s debate. Over some time, there have been comments by a number of noble Lords that they would like to find a way to leave the House, although not usually to surrender their title at the same time. In every Session since 2007, such comments have distilled around the House of Lords Reform Bill, a Private Member’s Bill first introduced as far back as 2007 by my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood. We have the inestimable pleasure of the Bill’s resurrection once again this Session. Although my noble friend is not down to speak in today’s debate, we have only to wait until 3 December when the Second Reading of the Bill is scheduled.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
The noble Lord does not need to wait until 3 December. I remind him that, in the days before we were locked together in unholy matrimony, as Leader of the Opposition he opposed my Bill, which included primary legislation on this very subject that is now recommended by the Hunt committee. Can I look forward to his support the week after next?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I say again what a pity it is that we will not hear the noble Lord’s full speech this afternoon. The luxury of being in opposition was that I could make these decisions on my own. As a member of the Cabinet there is a process to undergo, but I shall let him know well before 3 December whether the Government will support his Bill on this occasion. That was the first point of context—the debates that we had on my noble friend’s Bill.
The second point of context is that a system of leaving the House has existed since 1958 under the leave of absence scheme. When the scheme was introduced, Lord Home predicted that some hundreds of Peers would avail themselves of it. I hear the same forecasts today. When I took my seat in 1986, there were 1,096 Peers with Writs and 133—12 per cent—had taken leave of absence. That figure rose to 169—more than 15 per cent—in 1987-88. Today, 738 Members are eligible to sit and just 19—2.5 per cent—have taken leave of absence. Clearly, the reported tide of desire to leave the place is not being reflected in the leave of absence scheme. One question that we are all interested to explore is: what is the mystery ingredient that would translate the mere 19 on leave of absence into the hundreds that some have hoped for? After all, average daily attendance here this Session is 424, which is well over 300 fewer than our total number.
The third important context is the coalition agreement, which announced that the Government will publish a draft Bill for reform of your Lordships’ House. The draft Bill will be published in the new year and will be scrutinised—no doubt in some detail—by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The draft Bill will include plans for transition. I can give an undertaking to the House that we will be looking to see whether the fruits that ultimately emerge from the Leader’s Group and from this debate will help point us in the right direction for transitional arrangements. I very much hope that they will.
My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and the other members of the Group are in the process of considering the options for reducing the current size of the House. Today’s debate gives noble Lords a further opportunity to add their views about what steps, if any, should be taken. The options fall into three broad categories, which are covered in the interim report. First, there are steps that could be taken by the House itself, without the need for legislation, to provide for retirement. While there may be some disadvantages to this approach, at least it could be done quickly. It would provide a means of retirement that many Members would like to see. The other two options would require legislation. One option would provide the legislative underpinning for permanent voluntary resignation. The other would involve an element of compulsion, which could involve, for example, Members being excluded on grounds of age or length of service or the holding of elections to determine which Members should remain in the House.
I should touch briefly on the subject of financial provision, simply in order to rule out any payment for retirement for the time being. In the current context it would simply not be understood by the British people.
Although the context is clear, today’s debate is not about wider reform. It is not even about the Government’s view on whether and how Members should be allowed, or made, to leave the House. Today’s debate is about consultation, about hearing the views of as many noble Lords as possible and about giving them the opportunity to respond to the options set out in the interim report. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and I look forward very much to hearing those contributions.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, what a fascinating, good natured and good humoured debate this has been. Noble Lords have dealt with this extremely interesting subject that affects all of us with great sensitivity, which is what it requires. This is my opportunity to respond to it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I will not give the Government’s view, any more than he gave the Opposition’s view, as this is still a consultative process and, clearly, we have not made up our minds on what we should do about retirement from this House or about a longer-term transition under a reform process. However, as I said earlier, a Bill will be published early in the new year, which will, no doubt, allow us the opportunity to examine these issues.
As for the Bill of my noble friend Lord Steel, which we are to debate on 3 December, the response that will be given from this Dispatch Box will not be my response but will reflect the carefully considered view of the Government on the merits of my noble friend’s case. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, questioned the need to have new Peers. Other speakers in the debate admirably made the case for needing new Peers. We need to freshen up our numbers from time to time and we will be doing that very soon. If the only motivation for doing that is to allow the Government to win more Divisions, we would not be giving the Labour Party any extra Members at all. I can confirm that the Labour Party is currently the largest party group in the House of Lords, and after the new Peers enter the House it will still be the largest single party in the House of Lords. Even the coalition is still a minority and will continue to be a minority in the House as a whole.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The fact is that if one takes into account the, shall we kindly say, limited voting of the Cross Benches—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am afraid that is the case. If we take that into account, then the coalition Government have a practical majority in your Lordships' House. Over the years this House has developed a wonderful reputation as a revising Chamber. However, with the greatest respect, if the House is not able to cause the Government to think again, how on earth can it be a revising Chamber?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I have absolutely no doubt that in the rest of this long Session the Government will be defeated on many occasions, not least with the support of Members of my own party and, indeed, of the coalition. As the noble Lord rightly says, this is a revising Chamber and we have all been here for long enough to know that that is exactly what happens.
I said that this has been an interesting debate and it has. Perhaps one of the most entertaining speeches was that of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Those who heard it were not surprised to hear a vintage speech. If we ever have an age limit, it should be a movable one which should always be set at a year older than the age of my noble friend. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, jumped up and reminded my noble friend of his views on women Peers in the 1950s. As we would expect, he dealt with that in a very gentlemanly way. However, he ought to remind the noble Baroness that in the House of Commons the party that voted against the introduction of women Peers was the Labour Party. The noble Baroness has cause to be glad that her party lost that vote in the 1950s. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that we should blame politicians for the state that we are in, but we are where we are and we must go on.
Lord Strathclyde
I was also grateful to my noble friend Lord Alderdice. I am not sure whether he is a good Peer because he is a psychiatrist, or whether he is a good psychiatrist because of all his experiences that he has built up in the House of Lords. Whichever it is, his contribution was extremely helpful and he accepted the case—as many who spoke did—that we need to reduce the size of this House. There is a problem we need to look at. If it was easy, we would have got to the solution a long time ago and I would not have needed to ask my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral to sort this out, but I must say that after today’s debate I am very glad that I did. He is going to have a bit more work to do.
In his interim report, my noble friend cleared out some of the undergrowth. The next stage is to perhaps prune up one or two options to take forward. There was some consensus on the fact that the House was too big, but there was not overwhelming consensus on anything else, although some Peers felt more strongly about some things than others. I thought it was useful that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn spoke, because he said that the age limit on the Bishops worked very well. There is a time limit for Bishops, which works well and there is a system of one in, one out. Our problem is that we want to get to a lower number overall before we start a system of one in, one out.
On the question of money, there was some support for financial provision, but one or two Peers were wholly opposed. The public mood—or perhaps the press mood—is not with us at the moment, but that may change over time. It depends on how long this process will take and the business case that could be made.
Apart from my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who spoke bravely on the subject, there was not much demand for compulsion through the arbitrary nature of an age limit. Likewise, I join many Peers who said that dealing with those who do not attend does not really deal with the more fundamental problem. I feel very strongly that there are some Peers who come to this House very occasionally, but make very eminent contributions which are worth a little more than those of some of our noble colleagues who like to speak every week on many different subjects. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for introducing me to the concept of the chattering classes in the House of Lords. Of course he is right. We are in this post-election phase whereby in the House of Commons there is a clear change of numbers. In the House of Lords, there is also a clear change of numbers, but it is very often as a result of those who were in another place coming here. They bring with them some of their habits from another place and they are all very keen to demonstrate that they have a lot to say. Many on all sides of the House do that. We are in a period of assimilation, and I suspect that in the next six or 12 months we will find that the incidence of participation will reduce. I certainly hope so, if that does not sound too much like the usual channels speaking.
My noble friends Lord Astor, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Tyler said, among other things, that we need to prepare for change and to do something, and some of them felt that the proposal that Peers should be elected out—the culling that the noble Lord from the Opposition mentioned—was a blunt instrument, which it is, of course. We have been through the process 11 years ago, it is well precedented and we have seen how it would work. But my noble friend Lord Waddington said that he would be wholly opposed to a party slate—a beauty parade with all the difficulties that that would bring in. What was interesting about the original hereditary Peers’ election was that many of them chose at that time to retire and not to stand in the election. There are those who believe that if we had a system of compulsory retirement through election which may be set at about 10 per cent or 15 per cent, quite a lot of Peers would be prepared to take that opportunity. I do not know, but perhaps that is something my noble friend could explore.
My noble friend Lord Kirkwood and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked, in slightly different ways: why would anyone want to leave this House? The noble Lord, Lord Graham, said that he did not want to leave until he absolutely had to and had no choice in the matter, because by that time he would be dead—which would be a great sadness to us all, because I have known him for a great deal of time and I always enjoy what he says.
We have given my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral a problem and an opportunity. The problem is that there is not a great deal of clarity in what has come out of this afternoon. The opportunity is that everyone wishes for something to be done and for him to come up with a proposal. I am extremely grateful to him and his committee for the way that they have approached the subject with tremendous skill and sensitivity. We are always being urged to seek a consensus. He has certainly done so, I wish him well in his endeavours and I hope that he will be able to produce a final report relatively shortly.