Public Bodies (Abolition of British Shipbuilders) Order 2013

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the draft orders be referred to a Grand Committee.

Motions agreed.

Banking Professional Standards

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

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

Motion agreed.

Patrick Finucane

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“an extremely dark and violent time”,

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

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

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

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

the Ulster Defence Association—

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

He finds that,

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

and he cites five specific areas of collusion.

First,

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

Sir Desmond finds that,

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

He is,

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

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

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

Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch—

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

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

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

but,

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

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

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

Brian Nelson and William Stobie—

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

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

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

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

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

Most shockingly of all, Sir Desmond says that,

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

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

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

“relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice”,

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

“senior Army officers deliberately lied to criminal investigators”.

The RUC Special Branch, too,

“were responsible for seriously obstructing the investigation”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Desmond says that his conclusion,

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

He goes on to say that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

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

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

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

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

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

[Earl Attlee]

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

[Lord Alderdice]

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

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

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

[Lord Strathclyde]

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

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

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

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

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

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

[Lord Strathclyde]

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

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

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Strathclyde]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness O'Loan]

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

“shocking levels of state collusion”.

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

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

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

[Lord Strathclyde]

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

[Lord Dubs]

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

[Lord Strathclyde]

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

[Lord Empey]

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

[Lord Strathclyde]

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

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

Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 11 December to enable the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on that day; and that Standing Order 46 be dispensed with on Tuesday 18 December to enable the Small Charitable Donations Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on that day.

Motion agreed.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) (No. 2) Order 2013

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the draft orders be referred to a Grand Committee.

Motions agreed.

Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Howell of Guildford set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Lord Popat to two hours.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Pitkeathley set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Lord Harrison to two hours.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, the Leader of the House has moved that the debate on the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Harrison should last for two hours. On the Order Paper, after that, there are, astonishingly, to be two Statements by two separate Ministers on the same subject. This entirely unprecedented action, which is also happening in the House of Commons, has, I understand, had to have the approval of the Speaker of the House of Commons, because it is unique. It has never happened before and the Speaker had to agree to it. You, Lord Speaker, do not have the power in this self-regulating House to agree to such an arrangement, an entirely unprecedented arrangement. The only power lies with us in the House to agree to that. I do not remember, recall or recognise that we have agreed to that. Does the Leader of the House intend to seek the approval of the House for such an unusual and unprecedented arrangement?

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, when he replies to that, can my noble friend the Leader of the House tell us whether the Statements are going to be antiphonal or sequential, and whether the Ministers will be questioned after each section of the Statement or at the end? Can he also tell us in what precise capacity the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is to address the House? Is he speaking as the leader of a political party in this House, or is he speaking on behalf of the Government? If he is speaking on behalf of the Government and my noble friend is speaking on behalf of the Government, what conclusions can we draw from that extraordinary state of affairs?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am delighted that so many noble Lords are sharp-eyed and have spotted that the annunciator has said that there will be two Statements after the Labour Party debates this afternoon. I am very happy to explain the position to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, says that this is unprecedented. It is certainly unprecedented in living memory.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Strathclyde]

But, my Lords, I gather that in the 1930s this sort of arrangement apparently took place. We have a coalition. On occasions—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Strathclyde]

On occasions, the different parties of the coalition should be able to make their views known to Parliament, and it looks as though this afternoon is one of those occasions.

As to the propriety of this House, what we are doing in this House is really quite simple. We are simply repeating Statements that have been made in the House of Commons: one being made by the Prime Minister and the other by the Deputy Prime Minister. As is standard practice on these occasions these Statements were offered to the Opposition, who can agree either to take them or not, or to defer them. Quite rightly, they agreed to take them. If the House does not wish to listen to me or to my noble friend Lord McNally repeating the Statements of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, it really does not need to at all. It will be quite late, after all, on a Thursday afternoon.

As to my noble friend Lord Cormack’s question, the Statements will be taken sequentially. What is interesting is that I am not entirely certain exactly how the Labour Party will approach this. I shall repeat the Statement of the Prime Minister, the Opposition will then reply, and then there will be 20 minutes’ Back-Bench time in the normal way that we wholly understand. After that is over, my noble friend Lord McNally will repeat a Statement of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am full of interest as to whether the Opposition will then say nothing, repeat the reply that they have already made or, more intriguingly, make a different reply to my noble friend’s Statement. There will then be another 20 minutes, if noble Lords wish to comment on it, and then we shall go on to the next business.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for so eloquently explaining the difficulties that the Government have found themselves in. Presumably that was an offer for me to make a statement—and presumably from the government Benches—because it seems that anyone can speak for the Government on these matters.

This really is a genuine first, when the coalition is so comprehensively divided that we have to go through this ludicrous episode this afternoon. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Companion states:

“Statements by ministers on matters of public importance may be made by leave of the House without notice”.

He has not really answered his noble friend Lord Cormack. When the noble Lord speaks as Leader of the House, will he be speaking for the Government? When the noble Lord, Lord McNally, speaks, will he speak on behalf of the Government? Or do we have two Governments, or perhaps no Government? Is this a precedent for the future? This afternoon in the other place there is to be an energy Statement. Is Mr Davey going to make one Statement on wind farms and Mr John Hayes another? I also do not think that it would be amiss for me to point out to your Lordships’ House that the coalition is not exactly united on Europe. Can we look forward to two Statements on Europe when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, repeats a Statement on Council meetings in future?

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been very keen in recent weeks to remind your Lordships’ House of the importance of sticking to the rules, but now we are apparently just waving the Companion away. Indeed, the Companion seems to have become the noble Lord’s flexible friend. Perhaps the real message for your Lordships’ House today is that this coalition Government’s days are numbered—and a jolly good thing too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

Is it now not abundantly plain that antiphonal would be better?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Cormack is enjoying himself far too much by repeating that word. Actually, I think the whole House is enjoying itself far too much and we really need to bring this very short debate to an end. My noble friend Lord Alderdice had it pretty well. We have a coalition and we are gently feeling our way on occasion as to the right approach.

I do think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, protests a little bit too much. I am sure that although from his Front Bench he will make one Statement, he will find a lot of disagreement with what he says from his Back-Benchers in both Houses.

The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, asked when the precedent was. I took a view a long time ago that any precedent from before the Second World War probably was not worth having, so I have not got it at my fingertips. However, I am reliably informed that it does exist. If I thought that we were breaking the rules of the House in doing this I would have said that to the House and then made a recommendation. There is absolutely nothing in the Companion that stops us having an innovative procedure on this, which is precisely what we are doing.

I know that noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth—are exercised about what, therefore, is government policy. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister set up this inquiry on behalf of the Government. He will make his Statement on behalf of the Government in the House of Commons; I shall repeat it here. However, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has taken the opportunity, as I think that both Houses will wish him to do, to make a separate Statement which will represent a view of the second party of the coalition. I think that we have flexible enough rules to be able to deal with that, and I very much look forward to the debate later on this afternoon.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House, although clearly the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is enjoying this debate. However, I would refer him to the Companion. It refers to “a government announcement”—it does not talk about separate government announcements. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. He has just said that he will be making a Statement this afternoon. He has still not answered the point as to who on earth he is making that Statement on behalf of.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, this is pedantry. If the noble Lords opposite really did not want these Statements they could have said so and the Statements would not be taking place.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that because this procedure is being accepted by him—and, I presume, very shortly by the House—we can therefore assume that the party other than the Conservative Party in the coalition did not feel strongly enough on student tuition costs or the Health Bill to issue a separate Statement?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, and no doubt other noble Lords, can make all sorts of accusations to my noble friends as part of this coalition. I think that it might be better if we wait until we have seen the response of Lord Justice Leveson and the Statements, and then the noble Baroness can make whatever point she wishes.

Motion agreed.

Leveson Inquiry

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as I said earlier on today, I thought that I should repeat the Statement made by the Prime Minister immediately after this debate and I should now like to do exactly that. The Statement was made by the Prime Minister a few minutes ago in the House of Commons and is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on today’s report from Lord Justice Leveson. As we consider this report, we should consider the victims. We should remember how the parents of Milly Dowler, at their most vulnerable moment, had their daughter’s phone hacked and were followed and photographed; how Christopher Jefferies’s reputation was destroyed by false accusations; and how the mother of Madeleine McCann, Kate, had her private diary printed without her permission and how she and her husband were falsely accused of keeping their daughter’s body in their freezer. These victims, and many other innocent people who have never sought the limelight, have suffered in a way that we can barely begin to imagine. That is why, last summer, I asked Lord Justice Leveson to lead an independent inquiry.

The inquiry had the power to see any document and summon any witness under oath to be examined by a barrister in public. It has been, as Lord Justice Leveson says,

‘the most public and the most concentrated look at the press that this country has seen’.

I thank Lord Justice Leveson and his entire team for the work that they have undertaken.

Lord Justice Leveson makes findings and recommendations in three areas: on the relationship between the press and the police; on the relationship between the press and politicians; and on the relationship between the press and the public. Let me take each in turn—first, the press and the police. Lord Justice Leveson makes it clear that he does not find a basis for challenging the integrity of the police, but he raises a number of areas which he felt were a cause for public concern, such as tip-offs, off-the-record briefings and, more broadly, “excessive proximity” between the press and the police. He makes a number of recommendations, including national guidance on appropriate gifts and hospitality, record-keeping of contact between very senior police officers and journalists and a 12-month “cooling-off” period for senior police officers being employed by the press. These are designed to break the perception of an excessively cosy relationship between the press and the police, and we support these recommendations.

When I set up this inquiry, I also said there would be a second part, to investigate wrongdoing in the press and the police, including the conduct of the first police investigation. This second stage cannot go ahead until the current criminal proceedings have concluded, but we remain committed to the inquiry as it was first established.

The next area is the relationship between politicians and the media. As Lord Justice Leveson has found,

‘over the last 30-35 years and probably much longer, the political parties of UK national Government and of UK official Opposition, have had or developed too close a relationship with the press in a way which has not been in the public interest’.

I made this point last summer when I set up this inquiry, and at the same time I set in train reforms to improve transparency.

This is the first Government ever to publish details of meetings between senior politicians and proprietors, editors or senior executives, as Lord Justice Leveson recommends in his report. He also recommends disclosing further information on the overall level of interaction between politicians and the press. This would apply to all parties and on the Government’s behalf I can say we accept the recommendation.

During the course of the inquiry, a number of serious allegations were made. I want to deal with them directly. First was that my party struck a deal with News International. This allegation was repeated again and again on the Floor of the House and at the inquiry itself. Lord Justice Leveson looked at this in detail and rejects the allegation emphatically. Let me read his conclusion:

‘The evidence does not, of course, establish anything resembling a ‘deal’ whereby News International’s support was traded for the expectation of policy favours’.

Those who repeatedly made these allegations—including Members of this House and, I have to say, the former Prime Minister—should now acknowledge they were wrong.

Secondly, it was alleged that I gave my right honourable friend, the then Culture Secretary and now the Health Secretary, the responsibility of handling the BSkyB bid in order to fix the outcome. Lord Justice Leveson states clearly that,

‘the evidence does not begin to support a conclusion that the choice of Mr Hunt was the product of improper media pressure, still less an attempt to guarantee a particular outcome to the process’.

That is another allegation repeatedly made again and shown to be wrong.

Thirdly, there was the criticism that the then Culture Secretary had rigged the handling of the BSkyB bid. Again, today’s report rejects that as well. My right honourable friend,

‘put in place robust systems to ensure that the remaining stages of the bid would be handled with fairness, impartiality and transparency’.

Indeed Lord Justice Leveson goes further, concluding that my right honourable friend’s,

‘extensive reliance on external advice … was a wise and effective means of helping him to keep to the statutory test’.

He concludes that,

‘there is no credible evidence of actual bias’.

Of course, as my right honourable friend has said himself, there are lessons to learn about how quasi-judicial decisions are made and we must learn those lessons. But let me say this: my right honourable friend, now the Health Secretary, has endured a stream of allegations with great dignity. The report confirms something that we on this side of the House knew all along: we were right to stand by him. Let me also say this: Lord Justice Leveson finds in respect to my right honourable friend the Business Secretary that he,

‘acted with scrupulous care and impartiality’.

Next—and most important of all—let me turn to what Lord Justice Leveson says about the relationship between the press and the public. As he says very clearly, even after 16 months of this inquiry, he remains,

‘firmly of the belief that the British press—all of it—serves the country very well for the vast majority of the time’.

But on the culture, practices and ethics of some in the press, his words are very stark. He finds that,

‘there have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist’.

He cites,

‘press behaviour that, at times, can only be described as outrageous’.

He catalogues a number of examples of such behaviour, going wider than phone hacking. He refers to,

‘a recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, almost irrespective of the harm that the stories may cause and the rights of those who would be affected’.

He finds that,

‘when the story is just too big and the public appetite too great, there has been significant and reckless disregard for accuracy’.

And he reports,

‘a cultural tendency within parts of the press vigorously to resist or dismiss complainants almost as a matter of course’.

In a free society, the press is subject to criminal law, civil law and requirements for data protection. But there should be a proper regulatory system as well to ensure that standards are upheld, complaints are heard and there is proper redress for those who have been wronged. That is what the current system should have delivered. It has not. As Lord Justice Leveson says, the Press Complaints Commission is,

‘neither a regulator, nor fit for purpose to fulfil that responsibility’.

That is why changes are urgently needed.

We welcome the fact that the press industry has put forward its own proposals for a new system of regulation, but we agree with Lord Justice Leveson that those proposals do not yet go far enough.

In Volume IV of the report, Lord Justice Leveson sets out proposals for independent self-regulation organised by the media. He details the key requirements that an independent self-regulatory body should meet, including: independence of appointments and funding; a standards code; an arbitration service; and a speedy complaint-handling mechanism. Crucially, it must have the power to demand upfront apologies and impose million-pound fines.

These are the Leveson principles. They are the central recommendations of the report. If they can be put in place, we truly will have a regulatory system that delivers public confidence, justice for the victims, and a step-change in the way the press is regulated in our country. I accept these principles and I hope the whole House will come behind them. The onus should now be on the press to implement them, and to implement them radically.

In support of this, Lord Justice Leveson makes some important proposals. First, he proposes some changes to the Data Protection Act that would reduce the special treatment that journalists are afforded when dealing with personal data. We must consider that very carefully—particularly the impact that it could have on investigative journalism. While I have been able to make only preliminary investigations about that since reading the report, I am instinctively concerned about that proposal.

Secondly, he proposes changes to establish a system of incentives for each newspaper to take part in the system of independent regulation. I agree that there should be incentives and believe that those he sets out, such as the award of costs and exemplary damages in litigation, could be effective.

Lord Justice Leveson goes on to propose legislation that would help deliver those incentives but that would also, crucially, provide,

‘an independent process to recognise the new self-regulatory body’.

This would, he says,

‘reassure the public that the basic requirements of independence and effectiveness were met and continue to be met’.

I have some serious concerns and misgivings about this recommendation. They break down into issues of principle, practicality and necessity.

The issue of principle is that, for the first time, we would have crossed the Rubicon by writing elements of press regulation into the law of the land. We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press. In this House, which has been the bulwark of democracy for centuries, we should think very carefully before crossing this line.

On the grounds of practicality, no matter how simple the intention of the new law, the legislation required to underpin the regulatory body would, I believe, become more complicated. Paragraphs 71 and 72 of the executive summary begin to set out what would be needed in the legislation. For example, it refers to validating the standards code and recognising the powers of the new body.

If you turn to page 1772 in Volume IV of the full report, it says this about the new law. It must,

‘identify those legitimate requirements and provide a mechanism to recognise and certify that a new body meets them’.

The danger is that that would create a vehicle for politicians, whether today or at some time in future, to impose regulations and obligations on the press—something that Lord Justice Leveson himself wishes to avoid.

Thirdly, on the grounds of necessity, I am not convinced at this stage that statute is necessary to achieve Lord Justice Leveson’s objectives. I believe that there may be alternative options for putting in place incentives, providing reassurance to the public and ensuring that the Leveson principles are put in place, and that these options should be explored.

These questions, including those about data protection, are fundamental questions that we must resolve. I have therefore invited the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition to join me in cross-party talks, starting immediately after this Statement. But let me be clear: a regulatory system that complies with the Leveson principles should be put in place rapidly. I favour giving the press a limited period of time in which to do this. It does not need to wait for all the other elements of Lord Justice Leveson’s report to be implemented. While no one wants to see full statutory regulation, let me stress: the status quo is not an option. Be in no doubt; we should be determined to see Lord Justice Leveson’s principles implemented.

Mr Speaker, there is much that we in this country can be proud of—the oldest democracy in the world, freedom of speech, a free press, and frank and healthy public debate—but this report lays bare that the system of press regulation we have is badly broken and has let down victims badly. Our responsibility is to fix this. The task for us now is to build this new system of press regulation that supports our great traditions of investigative journalism and free speech but protects the rights of the vulnerable and the innocent, and commands the confidence of the whole country. I commend this Statement to the House.”

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, very much for his response. He has made a similar analysis to that of the Prime Minister on the virtues of the Leveson report, come to many similar conclusions and, indeed, accepted many of the same recommendations as the Prime Minister has done on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord was right to reiterate his thanks to Lord Justice Leveson and to remind us that the reason why all this came to a head was that the disgraceful way in which so many innocent victims had been affected by the press’s behaviour over a great deal of time came to light. It is right that Parliament and politicians should be part of the responsibility for allowing that to happen over many decades. The noble Lord talked about cross-party talks, and I am glad that the Labour Party will play its full part.

The report that has been published stands almost six inches high. It is an extremely authoritative document. It will take time to read and to digest. I am glad to be able to announce to the House that we will have an opportunity for a full debate on the report on Tuesday 18 December, which will give us time to digest the report and its implications before coming back to the House and making, no doubt, substantive speeches on its conclusions.

The noble Lord said that we should try to deal with this as quickly as possible. Our view, with which I hope the noble Lord will agree, is that there is much here that the press can get on with immediately. They do not need any more encouragement from Parliament or from Lord Justice Leveson to put the changes into effect, and they should do so. The noble Lord asked about the role of Ofcom. That is one of the things that we need to discuss in the cross-party discussions.

As to whether or not this is statutory regulation, I agree with the analysis of Lord Justice Leveson, as the noble Lord invited me to do. In fact, Lord Justice Leveson argued strongly that his model is not statutory regulation. He says in his report:

“Despite what will be said about these recommendations by those who oppose them, this is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press”.

It is a statement of belief in independent self-regulation. However, there are aspects of statutory regulation that are required in all of this. We are not convinced that statutory regulation would be the best way of providing for these things. There needs to be some further discussion, and that is what we will continue to have in the cross-party talks.

I hope that the talks will be businesslike; there is no reason why they should not be. They will be carried on as well by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I hope that we will be able to conclude those discussions as soon as possible.

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, are there not two major points on which we can all agree? First, the campaign organised by the big newspapers before the report was even published to say that Leveson was backing a state-regulated press has been shown to be utterly false, and the newspaper advertisements suggesting that he was about to side with Mugabe, Castro and all kinds of other dictators should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

Secondly, I think that I was the first parliamentarian to call for an inquiry. Can we also agree that Lord Justice Leveson has done the country an enormous service by exposing the corruption that has taken place in some parts of the press and by criticising the inadequacy of the Press Complaints Commission? Lord Justice Leveson has proposed a new, absolutely independent complaints body with the very minimum of statutory underpinning, which, in my view, is good for the public and good for the press. I urge the Government to take the opportunity of the inquiry that they set up and to implement these eminently sensible proposals. If we falter now, I think that we will live to regret it.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I very much welcome what my noble friend Lord Fowler has said. He is right that there has been an extraordinary mood of hysteria in recent days and weeks about what the Leveson report would come out with. Many people will regard what my noble friend said about the report to be right. He was right to call for an inquiry and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was right to set it up. That decision has been vindicated: the report has exposed corruption and the inadequacy of the current press regulatory system, and has pointed us in the right direction to go forward from here.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and I am very pleased to see his report. I have read only the executive summary. I gave evidence because, after my daughter was attacked, my family and I were subject to sustained harassment, press intrusion and misinformation, which continued for about five years. The coverage usually was sensational but usually kindly in tone. However, its main purpose was commercial. Will the noble Lord the Leader of the House reassure us that the Government will act swiftly to implement the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson? Victims of abuse deserve nothing less. Will he also tell us what steps the Government will take to prevent a decisive response being derailed by vociferous elements of the industry—those parts of the industry that have been thoroughly disgraced and remain remorseless?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s words are particularly poignant because of what she and her family went through some years ago. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that there is no place in ethical journalism for what happened to her; it was outrageous. It is one of the issues that have brought the reasons for this report to a head.

I confirm that we will act swiftly. We have acted swiftly already today by announcing the areas on which we comprehensively agree and in announcing cross-party talks. Perhaps I may reiterate what I said a moment ago: there is no reason why the press cannot start in this new direction as quickly as possible, providing a system of independent and transparent regulation with very firm criteria, along the lines proposed in the report from Lord Justice Leveson.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

Lord Justice Leveson said today that the Black-Hunt proposal for a reformed PCC does not come close to delivering regulation that is genuinely free and independent both of the industry and political control, and has called for an independent verifier established by statute. Twenty years ago, David Calcutt QC came to virtually the same conclusion and was ignored. Are we not in danger here of repeating the mistake of 1992 of asking for advice and then ignoring it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the overwhelming majority of the recommendations, suggestions and thought process that Lord Justice Leveson has gone through have been accepted by us and, no doubt, by the press. I say “no doubt”—I very much hope that that applies to the press. There are issues that we believe need to be explored more thoroughly, particularly about the role that legislation should play. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon that he had issues on the principle, the practicality and the necessity of that. These are issues that we can explore in the near future.

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, I speak as a victim of our free press. The failure of the PCC and the Metropolitan Police is well recorded in this excellent report by Lord Justice Leveson, who has given us solutions to that failure. I welcome the report, as it recommends change and accepts the recommendations that I made for change, including the voluntary and statutory framework, when he invited me to do so in giving evidence to his inquiry. Does the Minister accept that Lord Justice Leveson was well aware that there could be a failure, as there has been in the past six inquiries into the press, as to whether they would carry out their promises and make the change? In those circumstances, is the Minister prepared to consider in the legislation that will come before this House a sunset clause that makes it clear that, if the press fail to carry out their promises, we have the authority in the Bill to bring forward a statutory framework, which Lord Justice Leveson said was the only alternative?

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord was clearly wronged by elements of the press. He is right to say that Lord Justice Leveson has comprehensively exposed a failure in the PCC, which cannot continue any more. He largely absolves the police from blame, although he has made some important recommendations on certain changes relating to the relationship between the police and the press.

I know that there are a lot of speakers. I shall try not to make my answers too long so as to get in as many as we possibly can, but I remind noble Lords that there will be another Statement along in a minute.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I shall try to follow that good example. When Lord Justice Leveson was appointed, I knew that we had an excellent judge to undertake this task. I knew from a certain amount of experience of being in Government in the past that he was dealing with an extremely difficult problem. We had the “last chance saloon” and so on over the time when I was in Government, so I know how difficult it is. Surely we have a unique opportunity at this time to go ahead with an extremely well thought-out system for giving the press the right of self-regulation that is seen to work in the public interest. The only purpose of the statutory arrangement is to ensure that that self-regulation will be properly independent in the sense that Lord Justice Leveson explained. I would have thought that the sooner we can get all-party consent to this, the better. There will be a certain amount of discussion about detail, but the principles and essentials of the legislation can surely be put in place very quickly. We owe it to people like those who have been referred to to do it as quickly as possible to prevent that kind of thing happening again.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My noble and learned friend has a great deal of experience and knowledge on this subject, and I agree with him that what we asked Lord Justice Leveson to do was extremely difficult—yet what he has done is to bring his intellect to bear and publish an extremely impressive report and analysis. I agree with much of what my noble friend said; there is an opportunity for us to work together on a cross-party basis to bring about some extremely good results as quickly and effectively as possible.

[Lord Mandelson]

My Lords, the Prime Minister said at the beginning of his Statement that above all we should put the interests of the victims first. I am afraid that in his response to Leveson he is doing the very opposite of that: he is putting politics and the perceived power of certain sections of the press before the interests of the victims. Let us be honest, he is not the first Prime Minister to be in that position.

The Leveson report is a very moderate and realistic set of proposals that seeks to achieve two things. First, it seeks to achieve high standards of journalism in this country and the untrammelled ability of journalists to pursue those high standards, while at the same time putting in place a rudimentary protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals. It is perfectly clear that what certain sections of the press—they are by no means unified—want to put forward instead is a variation of the PCC, which, as we know, is and always has been a plaything of the Daily Mail and News International—nothing more or less than that.

Leveson is right: we need a statutory longstop to a genuinely independent system of regulation—a statute that should give privileges to the press because of the unique role that they play in our society, but should make absolutely clear that while they enjoy those unique privileges, they are none the less not above the law in how they behave.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is truly astonishing to hear the noble Lord complain about politicians being political. I cannot join him in his accusation that my right honourable friend is afraid of the power of the press; in fact, I think that my right honourable friend has accepted most of the criteria set out in this report. Where I agree with the noble Lord is that we should have uppermost in our minds the interests of the victims, and should judge the criteria and the new system of regulation against that. The new regulatory system, unlike the current one, will be devoid of editors and members of the Government on its governing board. That is an enormous strength to ensure that it can never again become a plaything of any newspaper group.

[The Lord Bishop of Liverpool]

My Lords, in the public debate there is sometimes an assumption that the problem with the press is that of a rogue reporter distorting a story. When I chaired the Hillsborough independent panel, we became aware of the way that one news agency failed not just one national newspaper but several, which between them became cumulatively responsible for misrepresenting the events of Hillsborough for a generation. Will the Government ensure that the regulatory body is sufficiently equipped to deal with complaints against such complex and enormous misrepresentation?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate brings a very particular experience of abuses of the press that have recently come to light. Again, it will be a test of the new regulatory system whether or not it will have the resources that he mentioned. At first reading of the executive summary, I am bound to say that I think the intention is that it will. However, that is precisely the kind of thing that we will be able to discuss in great detail.

[Lord Soley]

My Lords, some people have been quick to demand that the powerful be held to account. Now is the time to hold the press to account because they have avoided that for too many years and we have all ducked the problem for too long. What troubles me about the Statement repeated by the Leader of the House today is that it calls on the press to make these changes, with which I agree, but if that means that they then do not proceed to legislate on the Leveson proposal, I will tell him exactly what will happen: in about two or three years’ time, when the spotlight of Leveson has dimmed, they will go back to their old ways. We must have Leveson.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Justice Leveson has created a new, self-regulatory system. We expect the press to put it into effect as quickly as possible. We should all be guardians to make sure that the press sticks to the new regulatory system.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I join in with the well deserved congratulations tendered in respect of Lord Justice Leveson, but does the Minister agree that a great deal of irrelevant nonsense has been spoken on the issue of freedom of the press? The press is subject to the law of sedition, defamation, treason, contempt and dozens of other fundamental legal principles, yet remains free. In Leveson we have nothing more than a statutory framework for spelling out certain principles of human decency that should have been abided by all along.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord that there has been a lot of nonsense spoken, but I do agree that there are statutes designed specifically to deal with excesses not just of the press but of other people as well. There are also instances—for example data protection—where the press has a privileged position and is excluded from the law. This is one area we need to examine.

[Lord Hattersley]

My Lords, in another place the Prime Minister was less than precise about how a regulatory authority that was not statutorily backed would be constituted. Does the Leader of the House agree that were the regulatory authority to be financed and nominated by the press itself, it would no longer be independent?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is perhaps a small misunderstanding. The authority will not be nominated by the press. It will be a truly independent body that will not have editors on it, as the current body has.

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the need to get on with establishing a new system of tough, independent regulation. The Prime Minister has laid down a tough challenge to the newspaper industry to proceed quickly. I reassure him that the industry will rise energetically to the challenge, starting tomorrow. There is much in the Leveson principles that he referred to that the industry can agree with. The proposals can be fully deployed in the proposals set out by my noble friend Lord Hunt. As the report says on page 1769, there is no reason why the industry model should not be capable of adaptation to meet the requirements set down. I concur, and we can look at the various points raised.

Finally, I echo the great caution expressed about the role in the new system of the statutory regulator Ofcom. I should have prefaced my remarks by declaring my interest as executive director of the Telegraph Media Group. I draw the Leader’s attention to paragraph 6.16 in volume 4 of the report, which states that the recognition body would be required to determine whether the standards code met statutory requirements. That would put a state regulator at the very heart of the newsroom. Does he agree that if the industry can make rapid progress in the task of establishing a new system, such a move would be not just profoundly dangerous but completely unnecessary?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I very much welcome what my noble friend said about the press welcoming this report as much as we do. It is for the press to come up with a very firm timetable for how quickly they will put this into effect. The issue of Ofcom is one that we will discuss over the next few weeks.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

My Lords, I discovered towards the end of the Leveson inquiry that my daughter’s mobile phone had been hacked 10 years ago. Her intimate conversations were used in a story published in the News of the World and other publications. Will the Government and the leaders of all parties bear in mind that it is not just those in the public eye but the families of those in the public eye, including the wider families—the brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, mothers and fathers—who suffer from press intrusion even though they have never volunteered to be in public life. Will the Government also consider, in the discussions that are about to take place about the importance of the media outwith London, the culture of the media across the whole of the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the national media operate in just as influential a way as they do in London for the rest of the UK?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord said. He is also right about the rest of the United Kingdom, and we shall need to take into account the devolved Administrations to make sure that they are fully on board with some of these changes.

European Council

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this might be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement on the European Council made a few minutes ago in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

“Last week’s Council was unable to reach agreement on a seven-year budget framework. This Government rejected a proposal that would have risked UK taxpayers paying for unaffordable increases in the EU’s annual budgets. We did so together with like-minded allies from a number of different countries. As net contributors to the EU, these countries—like Britain—write the cheques. Together, we had a very clear message: we are not going to be tough on budgets at home and then sign up to big increases in European spending in Brussels.

Let me explain to the House the proposal we rejected, why a deal is still doable, why it is still in our interests to work to achieve that deal, and why throughout these negotiations I will continue to protect the UK’s rebate.

Our objective for EU spending in the seven years to 2020 is clear: we want to see spending reduced and will insist on at least a real-terms freeze. As the House knows, the actual EU budget is negotiated annually. What we were negotiating in Brussels last week—and will return to again next year—is the overall framework for the next seven years, which includes the overall ceilings on what can be spent.

During the previous negotiation, which covered the period 2007-13, the previous Government increased the payments ceiling by 8%. The commitments ceiling was effectively set at €994 billion—well above the level of actual spending. It was a bit like having a credit card limit far above what you can afford. It was an open invitation to the EU’s big spenders to push for higher and higher spending every year, and we are still paying the price for that decision.

This year, 2013, the Commission and European Parliament are attempting to grow the annual budget by another 6.8%. I am determined to get these ceilings down in line with what we can afford. Prior to the Council, the Commission produced a ludicrous proposal for increasing the commitments ceiling still further to over €1 trillion. We said no. The Cypriot presidency produced a slightly lower proposal. Going in to the Council, the President of the Council, Herman Van Rompuy, produced a new proposal: this time, a ceiling of €973 billion.

As you can see, we were making progress in getting the ceilings down. But as I and other leaders made clear, it was not enough. We set out a number of very reasonable ways in which the seven-year ceiling could be reduced even further, by tens of billions more. What was disappointing at the Council was that, having heard these proposals, the President offered a new proposal that failed to reduce significantly the previous total, and simply redistributed money to buy off different countries.

In a seven-year budget of almost €1 trillion, the idea that there are no real savings to be found is simply not credible. For example, when it came to the bureaucratic costs of the European Commission, not a single euro in administrative savings was offered—not one euro. We need to cut unaffordable spending. The deal on the table was not good enough and that is why we—and others—rejected it.

However, we believe that a deal is still doable. There is absolutely no reason why we should not be able to reduce the seven-year ceiling down to the level needed. There is plenty of scope for significant savings in the common agricultural policy and the structural and cohesion funds, but there are savings to be had in the rest of the budget as well. For example, freezing the ceilings for security, justice and external spending would allow €7.5 billion of additional savings. There are some programmes, like Connecting Europe, which have enormous proposed increases in their budget that can be radically scaled back.

As I have said before, there is simply no excuse for not taking a much tougher approach towards the EU’s administrative costs. The EU institutions have simply got to adjust to the real world. A 10% cut in the overall pay bill would save almost €3 billion. Relaxing the rules on automatic promotion at the European Commission would save €1.5 billion. Reducing the extraordinary generosity of the special tax rules for Brussels staff—the levy—could save around another €1 billion. Changes to pension rights could save another €1.5 billion. These are all perfectly reasonable proposals. That is why a deal is still doable, and we will push hard for these reductions when negotiations resume next year.

Briefly, let me be clear about why we want a deal. If no deal is reached, the existing ceilings are simply rolled over and annual budgets are negotiated on a year-by-year basis, taking account of those ceilings. Crucially, we would not get the reduction that we need in the seven-year budget ceilings negotiated by the previous Government. The credit-card limit would stay beyond what is affordable, tens of billions of euros higher than the deal that we actually rejected at this council. It is in our interest to get a deal. That deal must not come at any cost. We must not lock in unaffordable ceilings for the next seven years. If necessary, we may have to galvanise a coalition of like-minded countries to deliver budgetary restraint through annual budget negotiations each year.

Finally, let me say a word about the UK’s rebate. As well as ensuring fairness in terms of the overall size of the EU budget, it is also essential to ensure fairness in the net contributions to that budget that each country makes. At this council we faced, as ever, determined pressure from many sides for our rebate to be slashed. The changes on the table in the proposal in front of us would have cost the UK more than a billion euros every year, but I was clear that all of this was completely unacceptable.

Britain more than pays its way in Europe. On a per capita basis Britain is the 11th richest nation and yet as a share of our national income we are the third largest contributor and that is with the rebate, or what remains of it after so much was given away by the previous Government. Without it we would have the largest contribution in the European Union, double that of France and almost one-and-a-half times as large as Italy’s or Germany’s. That would be completely unfair. It is why Margaret Thatcher was right to fight so hard to win the British rebate. It is why the previous Labour Government did this country such a disservice in agreeing to give part of it away. It is why no Government that I lead will ever put that British rebate back up for negotiation.

We have put a marker down at this council. We stood up for the taxpayer. Together with like-minded allies we rejected unacceptable increases in European spending and we protected the UK’s rebate. We are fighting hard for the best deal for Britain and that is what we will continue to do. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am increasingly at a loss to understand the noble Baroness’s party’s position on our great European home, particularly given her background in the European Commission. What did it do when it was in government? The Government in whose Cabinet she sat waved through above-inflation hikes to the previous EU budget; they gave away £7 billion of our rebate; they failed utterly and completely to get CAP reform in return; and they would not even use the veto to protect Britain’s interests. All that goes on top of the promise in 2005, let us not forget, of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. As soon as they got in, they forgot all about that.

The noble Baroness, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, said that we do not have an alliance. The only reason that we are having this kind of Statement today is that we have a strong alliance. We have the Dutch, the Swedes, the Danes, the Finns and the Germans all backing our position. I would rather be with them on this issue than with the Labour Party. One might well ask where Labour’s alliance is on all this. It seems to be muddled, with its leader in the European Parliament asking for more money in stark contrast to the leadership demonstrated by—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I should point out that Labour MEPs in the European Parliament, led very ably, voted together with the Conservative Members of the European Parliament against an increase and in favour of a freeze.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is amazing how quickly policy changes in the Labour Party when it is in opposition, but its leader in Europe called for us to contribute £1 billion more to the EU. Its MEPs voted against freezing last year’s budget at 2010 levels and its group in the Parliament has called for a 5% budget hike and new EU taxes. And then to our rebate—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, that is not true. The leader of the group of European Socialists may well have voted in that way, but the leader of the British Socialists in the European Parliament, Glenis Willmott MEP, voted against, together with all British Labour MEPs.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I now wholly understand why I was confused. It just depends what kind of European Parliament socialist you are talking about. The noble Baroness also asked me about the real-terms freeze. We are of course in the middle of what will clearly be protracted and complicated negotiations. It is not possible for me to follow the noble Baroness into the detail of the numbers but we have said that we believe there is scope to reach agreement on a real-terms freeze, which would be a commendable objective to achieve. Furthermore, on the composition of the budget, if you look at the figures on agricultural policy, we were happy to go along with a cut from €336 billion to around €270 billion, which, with an added contribution from the Commission’s administration savings, would have been sufficient. However, for some other European colleagues, that was a cut too far on the CAP and it was not accepted.

I finish by dealing with the conclusions of the noble Baroness. She accused us of trying to do backdoor deals with UKIP. I can confirm that there are no backdoor deals with UKIP or indeed with anybody else. As for the Prime Minister being undermined by members of the Cabinet, I absolutely assure the noble Baroness that he does not feel in the least bit undermined by anything that anybody has said because we have a completely united view that we should operate with British interests and in the best interests of the British taxpayer. That is what happened at the end of last week in the European Council budget negotiations and it is what we will continue doing in the future.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement in your Lordships’ House. Does he accept that under no circumstances should we deviate from a real-terms freeze and that we cannot support a real increase in EU spend at a time when there is deep fiscal tightening in the United Kingdom and indeed across Europe, with British taxpayers seriously feeling the pinch? Does he also agree that this is not the time for political opportunism? Government figures show that the UK household is, on average, up to £3,300 a year better off as a result of increased UK trading with the EU through the single market. There are 3.5 million more UK jobs and the cost of living is some £480 a year cheaper per person as a result of EU-wide competition driving down the cost of goods and services.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is always good to hear my noble friend and his reiteration of the case for us being a member of the European Union, with the benefits that being part of the single market gives the British economy and indeed European consumers right across the Union. I also agree with what he said about our negotiating position. It is extremely important to get a message over to the European Commission that the days of continual increases in the budget have to come to an end. It is no longer possible for Governments to argue for reductions in their own national budgets while agreeing to extend those budgets in the European Union.

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I spent a good part of my career on European affairs in the British Government and some part of it in the European Commission. It is difficult to comment decisively on a negotiation that is not finished but will apparently be resumed in January in order to seek to agree on a multiannual budget framework for the EU. I know of course that, if agreement is not reached, we shall have annual budgets, so there will not be a deadlock. There will, however, be high costs, so we have to be attentive to that. There has also been talk about the British rebate—and there always is whenever there are EU financial negotiations. Can the Minister once again confirm that the UK rebate is subject to unanimity, that it cannot be changed without our agreement and that it is indeed an intrinsic part of the financial arrangements of the European Union?

The two key points of the negotiation of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in which I participated, was that the UK would receive a substantial amount of money—by the end of 2010, the British taxpayer had received £68 billion, which is well worth having—and that the rebate could not be taken away by qualified majority. My view is that we can sleep easy on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is always good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, who brings to this House a good deal of experience and knowledge from having held such a senior position within the Commission. I agree that it is very difficult to comment decisively at this stage, as we do not have the normal conclusions that we would have at this time, and the negotiations are to continue. The noble Lord is also right to point out what happens if we end up with an annual budget, annual negotiations and annual rerating. I can confirm his understanding—I expect that that is his understanding because he was there when it was originally negotiated—that the UK rebate can be changed only if everyone agrees. In other words, I can confirm that it is subject to unanimity.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, one question that has not been answered needs answering. Where are the Government’s red lines in the next negotiations? We do not know; perhaps the Government do not know. If at the next round in January, or whenever it is to be, no compromise can be found, or it is a compromise that does not match what the Government feel they can accept, what are the Government going to do? Will they veto the whole thing or what? We do not know—perhaps the noble Lord does not know—but let us at least get an idea of where those red lines might be.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not think it is sensible to go into every negotiation with a public view of what your ultimate red line might be. We have been clear that what is needed is, at best, a cut—

[Lord Grenfell]

I am sorry, but on the Lisbon treaty we went into negotiations with red lines; they were very firmly laid out.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, if I may revert to a sad period in our history, that negotiation was subject to the agreement of the British people. As soon as the Labour Party won the election, it reneged on that arrangement. The noble Lord himself voted against giving the British people a choice. If they had had a choice, we may have ended up with something rather different.

Going back to the noble Lord’s original question, we feel that what is needed is, at best, a cut and, at worst, a real freeze to actual payment levels. Of course, we are still in negotiation. We will continue to have those negotiations until we start discussing it again. Noble Lords would not expect us to get into specific figures.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Does my noble friend agree that this firm line from the Prime Minister has opened up an extremely healthy and much-needed debate on the future structure of the European Union—the so-called overall framework, which, as presently deployed, creates constant upward pressure on spending, which all parties deplore? It appears that we have many allies in taking the view that European reform is needed. Does my noble friend therefore agree that, if we can develop a view about how the European Union’s overcentralised and outdated structure can be reformed, not only will we begin to have many allies throughout Europe but we ought to have the support of all sensible people in this House and elsewhere who want us to play a leading part in a modernised Europe that is fit for purpose in the 21st century?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My noble friend reiterates a position that he has held for some time. Indeed, he has been very much in the vanguard of this thinking. I agree that there is a lot wrong with the centralised, bureaucratised and expensive European Commission and how it operates that needs to be sorted out. The EU itself faces its own internal crises, not least within the countries of the eurozone, but all that is an opportunity for those who think like my noble friend to come forward with proper modernisation, as he called it—proper reforms that I believe would command a great deal of support within both Houses of Parliament and throughout the rest of Europe. He is right in saying that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is dealing with these negotiations in entirely the correct manner.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, has the noble Lord ever considered that our national influence in Brussels on this and other subjects would be enhanced—and therefore the national interest would be advanced—if the Government occasionally displayed some real, positive commitment towards our membership of the European Union, or even actual enthusiasm for it, rather than constantly carping, complaining and often threatening to leave? Would not such a more positive attitude better reflect the interests of the British people? Almost every subject on which the people of this country feel most strongly—whether it is prosperity within the single market, the future of world trade negotiations, our ability to respond to the challenge of climate change, our ability to cope with the threats of organised crime and terrorism, or the future peace and stability of our own region and regions around us on this planet—depends for its resolution on a cohesive and successful European Union. That must be part of the solution, not part of the problem, as the Government keep trying falsely to represent.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is unduly pessimistic and that he exaggerates. There is no threat to leave; not from the Prime Minister, not from the Foreign Secretary, not from me—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Mr Gove.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Nor from anybody else. There are those who suggest that at some stage there might need to be a referendum, and there may, but we will need to see what that will be about. On the contrary, I think that the noble Lord has completely misunderstood: we are very positive about the European Union, but a Europe which is cohesive and successful does not need to be bureaucratic, centralising and expensive. One needs only to hear my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford talking with such enthusiasm about what a reformed Europe could look like to know the truth of that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has exaggerated the position of the Government.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I have read the Statement and it seems to me to be an interim Statement. The Prime Minister is saying, “Not a penny more and, if possible, a lot less”. I raise two points. The first concerns the position of the European Parliament, which seems to have a lot to say about expenditure but of course has no power to raise the money. I believe that the Prime Minister should be pointing out that those who raise the money—in other words, the nation states—should have the most say. My other point concerns the rebate and the report that sets out very clearly what a reduction in the rebate would mean for British taxpayers. I hope that the Leader of the House can promise that the Prime Minister will not do what his predecessor did and give away some £1 billion of our rebate for nothing tangible in return.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord’s concluding remarks. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely plain—if the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, wanted a red-line issue, here is a red-line issue—that he will not surrender any part of the rebate. The rebate is absolutely crucial. There is a good reason for doing so: the last time a proportion of the rebate was surrendered by Mr Blair, he got absolutely nothing in return. It was a very positive act by the then Prime Minister, but it did not help the relationship or the further negotiations with the EU; quite the contrary.

I also agree with what the noble Lord said about the nation states. There is increasingly a division between the net contributors and the net benefactors within the EU, and it must be right that those who pay the most are listened to very carefully during these negotiations, which is why the UK finds itself not isolated over the course of the weekend but with some good friends who agree that these issues need to be debated and discussed in full and that reform needs to come.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, many of us have savoured the vision of Mrs Merkel swooning at Mr Cameron’s feet—as they say in Manchester, “A likely story”. I have two questions. The first is whether there is still some debate about what a freeze actually means. Where is the wriggle room in this debate? Is it to do with the price indices or the distance between the median amount in the present seven years and in the next seven, presumably with some prediction about price increases, or is it a freeze on where expenditure has now got to in 2012?

The second question is this: on the contrast in the Prime Minister’s Statement between the freeze that he is looking for in Brussels and the “big cuts” in Britain, is it not the case that in Britain there is a balance and, while the cuts are certainly very damaging, part of the result of the zero or very slow growth is that with rising unemployment and expenditure on social security, disappointing returns to the Treasury from corporation tax and so on, the OBR and the Red Book both state that in real terms we are now on a plateau, absolutely level, and will be for three or four years, and in money terms we are creeping up? If I am wrong on that, could the noble Lord write to me and put a copy in the Library, or does he accept that in real terms a freeze is actually roughly where we are in Britain as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am not entirely certain where the noble Lord is coming from. I am very happy to write to him, but we are fully supportive of the EU growth agenda. We want the single market to work; we want to extend it to make it deeper with better enforcement and better implementation. We want to increase the scope for the digital single market and e-commerce, and we want a far more ambitious programme of deregulation, which we believe will help growth. We are fully in favour of the EU’s stance on free trade and trade with countries in the world, particularly with South Korea, Canada and Singapore. All this is in large part due to the influence and pressure that we in this country have exerted

We can get ourselves in a terrible pickle over what we mean by a real-terms freeze and which figures we are looking at, but we have been clear that we would like a cut and, at worst, a real freeze to actual payment levels—it is those levels that count; we want to protect the rebate; and we want no new taxes to finance the MFF. These are the key issues, but if I can clarify any of that in a letter to the noble Lord, I will certainly do so.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, the Statement came across as though the Government regarded a real-terms freeze as the best possible option. Given that, across Europe, Governments are actually having to reduce expenditure, could one not expect something rather better than that: a real-terms reduction?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that would be very attractive and definitely worth going for. However, I expect that while we might go for, at best, a cut, we may need to settle for, at worst, a real freeze to actual payment levels.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I press the noble Lord on two agreeable exchanges he had with his noble friends, the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Dholakia. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, agreed that reform of the EU would be a wonderful thing. Does the Leader of the House agree that to get any reform of the European Union, to retrieve a comma from the treaties of Rome, requires unanimity among all 27 members? Secondly, on the claim of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that 3 million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union, I thought that we had killed this old chestnut some years ago. Does the Leader of the House agree that we do indeed have 3 million jobs, making and exporting things to clients within the European Union, but they have 4.5 million jobs making and exporting things to us and we are in fact their largest client? Were we to leave the European Union, there is no prospect of any of our jobs being lost. On the contrary, millions of jobs would be created because we would be set free from the clutches of this corrupt octopus.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord has slain this particular chestnut, if that is not mixing my metaphors too much. The fact is that an enormous amount of jobs in this country are linked to our membership of the EU through exports to the EU. However, the noble Lord may wish to take heart that, despite tough conditions, British exports of goods have increased in the past two years to China by 72%, to India by 94% and to Russia by 109%. So we can get the best of all worlds: we can have rising exports, better trade within the single market and better trade with the rest of the world.

I think that my noble friend—I am sorry, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Strathclyde]

I will get to my noble friends in a moment. The noble Lord was trying to create an artificial difference between my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Howell of Guildford, of which I think there is none. In the coming months, we will find that the British Government are forceful in looking at ways in which some of the competences that are currently held in the EU could be returned to the United Kingdom.

Electoral Registration Data Schemes (No. 2) Order 2012

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Bill is not on the Order Paper or in Forthcoming Business. Therefore, I have nothing more to add to announcements that I have made in the past.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, I was not able to be in the House when this matter was raised recently but, of course, I have read the exchanges and the related documents. I hope that the House will allow me to put a few comments on the record.

During my time as Speaker, I worked with three Clerks of the Commons. I believe that I had their great respect and support. They certainly had mine. If there was any success in that Speakership, much of it was due to their support and advice. Much of the time, the Clerk and I were as one with the way in which we should proceed. But, if I recall correctly, there were a couple of occasions when I overruled that advice. The decision was a very difficult one, taken against considerable professionalism and precedence. But I took it in what I believed to be the best interests of the democratic process, and to provide debate on a contentious issue of public interest and concern—and the roof did not fall in.

For us, of course, there is no Speaker here to make that ultimate decision. We all know what the Companion tells us; it has been repeated many times recently in this House. But by its very nature, it is advice that is offered to us and it is only advice; it is only expected to be taken. It is not a command, nor is it written on tablets of stone. I put it to the Leader of the House that, as there is no individual in this House to make the ultimate decision, is it not for your Lordships’ House to make that final decision? Certainly, such a decision and the order of the business of this House should not rest with the Leader nor with the Opposition, nor should it rest with any other individual who does not carry the authority to do so.

We are an integral part of the democratic system. The way in which your Lordships conduct their business is a matter for the House itself. I concern myself at this stage not with the substance of the amendment itself, or its merits or demerits, but with the question of admissibility. That is the principle question. Should this House not initially deal with the question of admissibility? I accept that it would be difficult to do so without discussing the substance, but it would not be impossible. Of course, following a decision on the principle, the substantive amendment would then either fall or be dealt with in the usual matter. That is surely the common-sense way of approach.

We are constantly being reminded that we are a self-regulating House. Let that be demonstrated, and let us carry out that self-regulation and operate the democratic process that we are here to perpetuate, for goodness’ sake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

I assure the noble Baroness that the Bill will not progress without the full scrutiny of this House. As I said earlier, the Government have not reached final conclusions on their deliberations but I am glad that there has been this short pause. As the noble Baroness has just informed the House, the pause has given an opportunity to those most eminent Members of this House to explore with the clerks whether the amendment can be made admissible. That is entirely the right approach. It would be strange and unfortunate if we were to break the precedence of many years and for this House to accept an amendment decreed as inadmissible by the clerks.

Perhaps I may be the first to welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. It is a pleasure to see her in her place and to hear her speak with such eloquence once more. It is one of the great advantages of this House that those with pretty much an entitlement to sit in this House are former Speakers of the House of Commons. With the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, we have the best examples of those who have sat in that illustrious Chair in another place, both giving their views on the advice they received and what they did with it when they were Speakers of that House.

There is also another wonderful thing, which is that the House of Commons is the House of Commons, the House of Lords is the House of Lords, and this House has developed different processes and procedures. While we are a self-regulating House, it is not a self-regulation of anarchy; it is self-regulating within the rules. Perhaps I may conclude by repeating once again what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, said on a very similar occasion a few years ago, when she was Leader of this House. She said:

“It is a consequence of our procedures that the House has collective responsibility for observing these procedures and that all Members of your Lordships’ House therefore need to co-operate to see that procedures are observed”.—[Official Report, 20/4/99; col. 1112.]

She was quite right.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I have been listening carefully to the Leader of the House and he has not clearly informed the House of the position in relation to this Bill. It is not unheard of for Bills to be abandoned during the course of a normal parliamentary Session; indeed, I am delighted that the Government decided to abandon the House of Lords Reform Bill. When they abandon a Bill, they normally make a clear statement to the House on their intentions. However, at the moment, we are getting very mixed messages from the Government. Whenever his counterpart, the Leader of the House of Commons is asked about the position in relation to this Bill, he states clearly—and procedurally he is right—that it is now a matter for the House of Lords. Thereby, the Bill is within our ownership and the Commons can do nothing about it until we have considered it and taken it through its proper stages. The noble Lord said during his reply that there was to be a “short pause”. The House is entitled to have at least some indication from the Leader of what he means by that.

[Lord Strathclyde]

First of all, to avoid any doubt because it is important to be clear, I can confirm that the Bill has not been abandoned; it has been postponed. When the Government have come to a conclusion that it should continue, the House will be informed in the normal way, either on the Order Paper or in an edition of Forthcoming Business. However, I can lend some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Although the current edition does not propose a date for the Bill, it includes plenty of other government business that we can get on with.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this, but I wish to say—because the Leader keeps quoting my noble friend Lady Jay in our exchanges, and I fully respect what my noble friend said when she was a very fine Leader of this House—that it is ultimately for this House to decide on the admissibility of an amendment, because this House, ultimately, is self-regulating.