Legislation: Pre-legislative Scrutiny
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell of Alloway
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether drafts of all their Bills should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
No, my Lords. Although we are committed to bringing forward as many draft Bills as possible, it is not always possible to do so—for instance, where Bills have deadlines for Royal Assent. This Session, the Government will publish in draft at least four Bills.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for having taken this Question, which has constitutional effect. May I, by leave, ask two questions for clarification? What consideration have the Government given to the three group reports that favoured mandatory reforms of pre-legislative scrutiny of draft government Bills, as was spoken to—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, looking at me—on three occasions: 25 January, 28 February and 12 July? The other question is very short: to ask whether and, if so, when a new formal, wholly effective structure shall be set up?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct that this is an important issue. For some years now there has been good practice from the former Government and this Government in attempting to publish Bills in draft and apply a process of pre-legislative scrutiny. The reason why there is not a mandatory structure for this is in part that it is not possible to have formal pre-legislative scrutiny early on in the Parliament. Some departments, through the process of consultation and the publication of Green Papers and White Papers, already allow for a certain element of pre-legislative scrutiny, although not necessarily the one preferred by my noble friend.
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House concede that pleading resource constraint does not constitute a credible argument against publishing as many Bills as possible in draft? Does he recall what the Liaison Committee in another place concluded in 2001 in its report, Shifting the Balance: Unfinished Business? It said:
“We repeat our view that the benefits in terms of better thought out and properly examined legislation will be out of all proportion to the modest expenditure involved”.
Is that not still true today?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I had not yet raised the question of resources. Although resources count, they should not necessarily be the be-all and end-all of the subject. I do not wish to give the impression that the Government are in any way opposed to pre-legislative scrutiny. We are committed to it; it improves the quality of legislation and provides an opportunity for public engagement. We have a group, chaired by my noble friend Lord Goodlad, looking at working practices, and I know for a racing certainty that this is one of the issues that it will be looking at.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, I recognise my noble friend’s role in engaging with our Liaison Committee in this House, but would the Government be prepared to invite Members of both Houses to consider the wise recommendations of the Constitution Committee, as far back as 2004, that the two Houses should establish a Joint Liaison Committee so that the opinions and particular expertise of this House could be fully taken into account in considering whether or not to establish Joint Committees for pre-legislative scrutiny?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, there is no bar to Joint Committees of both Houses being involved in pre-legislative scrutiny. We have already proposed that, this Session, there should be a Joint Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny when a draft Bill is published on the future of your Lordships’ House. Whether there should be a formalised structure of a Joint Liaison Committee is another matter altogether, and one that I am certainly prepared to consider.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that it is especially important that constitutional Bills have pre-legislative scrutiny? I recognise the difficulties he cited about it being early in this Parliament, but might he not regret the fact that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill came so early in this Parliament? That is a Bill that should have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. May I also suggest to him that the Public Bodies Bill should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny? There has been little or no consultation on it but it will affect millions of our citizens.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not agree with either the general premise of the noble Baroness’s argument or the specific examples. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was published on 22 July and the Committee stage in another place did not begin until October. So there was plenty of time, albeit there was a Summer Recess, for it to be examined.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that there should be a presumption in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny? Does he think it desirable that if a Bill is brought forward without pre-legislative scrutiny, the Minister sponsoring the Bill should at least make a Statement to Parliament explaining why the Bill has not been so subject?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will find as the Parliament gathers pace that there are more and more Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny. I made the case at the beginning that—in the very first Session of a Parliament, particularly when many of the ideas we are bringing forward were tested at the anvil of election and, indeed, while we were in opposition—it would be unfair to have a mandatory basis for pre-legislative scrutiny.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, perhaps I may remind the Government of a Bill that they introduced early in the 1992-97 Parliament—a raves Bill dealing with the tragic deaths of young people in nightclubs in Scotland. It was a three-clause Bill and we subjected it to pre-legislative scrutiny. The major clause was the third one. The then Minister, after the pre-legislative scrutiny and the visits we made, informed me that the Government were withdrawing that clause. Does that not tell us that Parliament, left on its own, can foul up in the most magnificent way, and therefore that the need for pre-legislative scrutiny of every Bill is urgent?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I totally agree with the broad thrust of the noble Lord’s argument—that pre-legislative scrutiny is important and useful. The noble Lord is also right. If you look at many of the Bills that were passed over the last 13 years, you wonder how many of them would have been improved with a bit more pre-legislative scrutiny.
Black Rod
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish to know that the Lord Speaker and the Clerk of the Parliaments have received a letter from Sir Freddie Viggers announcing his decision to resign as Black Rod. Black Rod, or Sir Freddie as we have come to know him, continues to make a remarkable recovery from a serious illness in May. However, I am sure that the House will respect his decision to resign, which I know he made with great reluctance.
This is not the moment for the House to pay tributes. As is customary, the House will have the opportunity to express its appreciation to Sir Freddie for the excellent service that he has given as Black Rod when his successor is appointed by the House. Until the appointment is made, the House will be grateful to the Yeoman Usher, Lieutenant Colonel Ted Lloyd-Jukes, for continuing as acting Black Rod.
Finally, on behalf of the whole House, the Lord Speaker has written to Sir Freddie, sending him very best wishes for a continued recovery and to his wife Jane and family.
Freedom of Information (Time for Compliance with Request) Regulations 2010
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the draft orders and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the debates on the Motions in the names of Baroness Perry of Southwark and Lord Hunt of Wirral set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.
Intelligence and Security Committee
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That this House approves the nomination of Lord Butler of Brockwell as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Climate Change: IPCC Leadership
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, let us hear next from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, should not the most important leadership on climate change be from the United States and China? Will my noble friend inform the House what the Government are doing to persuade those two giants of carbon emissions to exercise that leadership at Cancún later this year?
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Valentine set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Baroness Warnock to two hours.
Privileges and Conduct Committee: Fourth Report
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, I beg to move that the fourth report from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct be agreed to.
The House is being invited today to agree three reports from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and three consequential suspension Motions. We are debating these reports together, which I hope will be convenient for the House, but I should emphasise that these are three separate reports, relating to three separate cases, and the Motions are entirely free-standing. On the other hand, the three suspension Motions are consequential upon agreement to the relevant reports, as they simply implement the committee’s main recommendation in each case.
This is a difficult day for the House, and the task before us in considering these Motions is not one that I—or, I am sure, any noble Lord—will relish. It is made no easier by the fact that the contents of the reports now before your Lordships’ House were leaked to the media over the weekend in advance of publication. I can assure the House that we took all reasonable steps to prevent any leak, and I deeply regret that there was a leak, particularly in so far as it caused any distress to the three noble Lords who are the subjects of the reports.
The three reports all relate to claims for expenses made under the Members’ reimbursement scheme. In each case the Member concerned designated one or more properties outside Greater London as his or her main residence and, as a result, claimed money under the night subsistence and travel expenses headings in the scheme. The key question in each case, which both the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct and the Committee for Privileges and Conduct have considered in turn, is whether the Member correctly designated the property or properties in question as his or her main residence.
I wish at this point to pay tribute to the members and staff of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct. They have taken on a vital, hugely difficult and, frankly, painful task. They have done their job with efficiency, rigour and fairness. I put on the record my personal thanks to the chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and her colleagues on the sub-committee.
In the three cases before us, the sub-committee concluded, in each case, that the noble Lord concerned had wrongly designated the property in question as his or her main residence, and had wrongly claimed sums varying from £27,000, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, to £125,000, in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. In each case the sub-committee concluded that the noble Lord concerned had made these claims in bad faith. All three noble Lords appealed against these findings to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, which I chair. We considered the appeals on Monday 11 October. Our reports speak for themselves but it may be useful if I briefly summarise our most important conclusions, first on points of principle and finally on the specifics of each of the three cases.
First, on the points of principle, we accept entirely the sub-committee’s conclusion that in each case money was wrongly claimed, and its calculations as to the amount of money wrongly claimed. However, we regard the repayment of this money as a matter of restitution rather than sanction, and therefore concluded that the length of suspension should not be linked to repayment. Secondly, the appeals contained a number of complaints as to the procedural fairness of the investigations. Although the sub-committee acted entirely properly throughout, and in full accordance with the procedure agreed by the House, we accepted that the procedure itself presents some difficulties.
As we say in our report on the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, there is a tension between ensuring that noble Lords under investigation enjoy appropriate procedural safeguards and preserving the informal and parliamentary nature of such proceedings. I believe that the House would not wish to turn internal disciplinary hearings into full-blown, adversarial court proceedings, with prosecution and defence lawyers and the cross-examination of witnesses. In fact, the House has explicitly agreed, more than once, that proceedings should be kept relatively informal. On the other hand, we need to ensure, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness, that all evidence is properly tested and that no noble Lord is found guilty on the basis of hearsay.
I should at this point remind noble Lords that these three investigations were all initiated in the previous Parliament, and so were conducted in accordance with the procedures agreed in December 2008. They are the last investigations to be conducted under these procedures. We now have a new Code of Conduct and a new set of procedures. The independent Commissioner for Standards, Mr Paul Kernaghan, will conduct any future investigations and present his findings to the sub-committee, which will, where appropriate, recommend a sanction to the main committee. This is, I believe, a better and clearer procedure. It separates the investigative and sentencing functions, and allows for an appeal against both elements to the main committee. The commissioner will have considerable freedom of action, and will be able to test all relevant evidence thoroughly. At the same time, I am sure that the sub-committee, along with the commissioner, will wish to reflect on the findings in these reports in the coming weeks, and consider whether our procedures could be improved still further.
I now turn to the three cases. In each case we found that the so-called “main residences” designated by the noble Lords were not appropriately designated. They were properties outside London, designated as main residences by noble Lords who, before, during and after the periods in question, resided substantially inside London. They did not reflect any natural interpretation of the term “main residence”. No entitlement to public money should have been claimed on such a basis.
In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Paul, we disagreed, on the balance of probabilities, with the sub-committee’s conclusion that he had acted in bad faith in wrongly claiming amounts under the expenses scheme. However, as paragraph 8 of our report states, noble Lords have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that any money claimed from public funds is properly payable. We consider that the noble Lord, Lord Paul, was grossly irresponsible and negligent in this regard. For that reason, and bearing in mind that he repaid a total of £42,000 to the House at the start of the investigation, we recommend that he be suspended from the service of the House for four months.
In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, we dismissed his appeal and upheld the sub-committee’s finding that he wrongly claimed over £27,000, and that in so doing he did not act in good faith. In judging the relative severity of sanction in the noble Lord’s case, we took into account the relatively short period within which he made his claims, and the fact that, after receiving the sub-committee’s report and shortly before the committee met, he repaid the money to the House. However, he has not apologised or acknowledged that he acted wrongly. We therefore recommend that he be suspended from the service of the House for eight months.
Finally, I turn to the sixth report, on the conduct of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. I have already indicated our concerns over the status of untested third-party evidence, such as the statements made to the police by her neighbours in Maidstone. We decided, after careful consideration and without intending any reflection on the quality of the evidence, that it would not be fair in her case to attach any weight to it. We then considered the noble Baroness’s own evidence, her letters, written statements, oral evidence and her appeal. It was clear to us that she had not advanced any reasonable interpretation of the term “main residence”. As the sub-committee points out, in so far as she attempted to offer an interpretation, it was one in which the word “main” had no meaning. She chose, over a period of years, to designate as main residences properties which she repeatedly described as “bolt-holes”. A bolt-hole is not a main residence, and the noble Baroness’s designations were wholly unreasonable. We therefore upheld the sub-committee’s finding that she wrongly claimed just over £125,000 over a four-year period, and that she should repay this money to the House. It will be for the Clerk of the Parliaments to arrange repayment.
We further found that in making these claims, the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, did not act in good faith. She has not acknowledged that she claimed the money wrongly; nor has she apologised in terms. In view of the length of time over which these claims were made, and the sums involved, we recommend that she be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the current Session of Parliament—in other words, until Easter 2012.
In conclusion, we cannot ignore what has happened in these cases. It is clear that there was abuse of the Members’ reimbursement scheme and that the House has a duty to act in those cases where such abuse occurred. I therefore commend these three reports to the House.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the Chairman of Committees. As the noble Lord said, we find ourselves on an extremely difficult and sad day for this House. The allegations made against the three Members of this House were serious, and the findings of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct and the Committee for Privileges and Conduct are serious. Their recommendations and the reports speak for themselves.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, in expressing gratitude to the members of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for the thoroughness with which they conducted their investigations. I should also like to express my thanks to the Clerks of the House for the exemplary service given to the sub-committee and to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct.
As a member of the Privileges and Conduct Committee, I believe that all three Peers concerned fell short of the standard of conduct that the House and the public are entitled to expect, and we must as a House act decisively. The public expect us to react with firmness and unity to demonstrate our abhorrence at wrongdoing.
The one light in this sorry situation is that the House has already taken decisive action to reform an outdated system of expenses. As from the start of October, we introduced a new transparent system of daily allowance based on attendance. I firmly hope that, as a result, this will be the last time that we as a House find ourselves in this position.
The committee’s findings are disturbing and the conclusions reached are grave, but they are, in my judgment, fair and just. I commend the reports to the House and hope that noble Lords on all sides will join me in supporting the Motions before us.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I, too, support the Motions. These are serious matters—serious for the Members involved, serious for this House and serious for Parliament, politics and the public beyond. We should not forget either that a number of parliamentarians, including two Members of your Lordships' House, are currently facing criminal charges to be tried in court on similar serious matters. But important though the matters before us today unquestionably are, it is important to remember that these are matters that relate to a different moment. When allegations on a number of issues were first made last year against Members of your Lordships' House, we were, in retrospect, in a poor position, our machinery outdated, our procedures similarly so, and our systems not suited to modern scrutiny.
As has been said, on these issues we have come a long way. No system is ever perfect. Any system or procedure is of course capable of improvement. We must not be complacent, but at the same time we now have a new procedure for making complaints, a new system for considering complaints, a new code of conduct against which complaints can be considered, and a new system of financial support for Members of this House. All of that has been reviewed, considered, examined and adopted within a relatively short space of time. Perhaps it was not at the speed which some outside this House would have wanted, but we have done it and what we now have—what this House has itself brought into play—is a whole range of new machinery and new procedures. Getting to this point has not been easy, but whatever we have been able to do has been right.
Today is again another day which is not easy or comfortable for anyone in your Lordships’ House. I feel great sadness. But I believe that the committee has come to the right conclusions on the cases before us and on the report from the sub-committee, and the House should support the Motions before us. The sub-committee did indeed face a very difficult task in dealing with the matters before it, and I, too, thank the members of the sub-committee and their staff for their work. At the same time, however, I believe that the main committee’s judgments in relation to the sub-committee’s report, including where it has diverged from the sub-committee’s recommendations, are right. I believe that the language of the sub-committee’s reports was in part misplaced. I believe that its inclusion of untested hearsay evidence was incorrect and that the penalties proposed by the sub-committee were not appropriate.
As a member of the full committee, I believe that we are right to make the recommendations we are putting before the House today. I welcome especially the proposal for the new Commissioner for Standards to examine issues relating to process that have arisen in the course of bringing the committee’s report before your Lordships’ House and, in particular, to addressing the question of the means by which all relevant evidence can be taken into account in our procedures. That shows that we are ready to examine, and examine continually if necessary, our procedures to make sure that they work and continue to work and to ensure that they are just. This is the right way forward for this House.
On the explicit sanctions before this House today, some may suggest that we were wrong, for instance, to alter the penalties proposed by the sub-committee, but I do not believe that we were wrong to do so. I believe that the approach taken by the full committee is the right one. The committee has judged that the three Members of your Lordships’ House did wrong and we are proposing stringent penalties in response. Just as last year when we took the decision to suspend members of your Lordships’ House for the first time since the age of Cromwell, so today we are proposing that we impose penalties of a severity never seen before in either House of Parliament. That is a tough action to take and a tough action for Members of this House to bear. Although they did wrong, as the report before you correctly concludes, I do not believe that this House will not feel sympathy for the Members involved. I know that I do. However, being aware of their difficulties and indeed, sympathising with them as colleagues in your Lordships’ House, should not for a moment pull us away from our responsibilities. We have a duty to this House, the Members of this House, to Parliament and to politics as a whole to right the wrongs where we find them and to take action as necessary to put our House in order. I have no doubt that this House will do so today.
Strategic Defence and Security Review
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by the Prime Minister.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the strategic defence and security review. There are four things to say up front. First, this is not simply a cost-saving exercise to get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in post-war history; it is about taking the right decisions to protect our national security in the years ahead. The two are not separate: our national security depends on our economic strength, and vice versa. As our national security is a priority, so defence and security budgets will contribute to deficit reduction on a lower scale than most other departments. Over four years, the defence budget will rise in cash terms and fall by only 8 per cent. And it will meet the NATO 2 per cent of GDP target for defence spending throughout the next four years. But this Government have inherited a £38 billion black hole in the future defence plans—bigger than the entire annual defence budget of £33 billion. Sorting this out is not just vital for tackling the deficit but vital to protecting our national security.
Secondly, this review is about how we project power and influence in a rapidly changing world. We are the sixth-largest economy. Even after this review, we expect to continue with the fourth largest military budget in the world. We have a unique network of alliances and relationships: with the United States, as a member of the EU and NATO, and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We have one of the biggest aid programmes in the world, one of the biggest networks of embassies, a time zone that allows us to trade with Asia in the morning and the Americas in the evening, and a language that is spoken across the globe. Our national interest requires our full and active engagement in world affairs. It requires our economy to compete with the strongest and the best. And it requires, too, that we stand up for the values we believe in. Britain has punched above its weight in the world, and we should have no less ambition for our country in the decades to come. But we need to be more thoughtful, more strategic and more co-ordinated in the way we advance our interests and protect our national security. That is what this review sets out to achieve.
Thirdly, I want to be clear that there is no cut whatever in the support for our forces in Afghanistan. The funding for our operations in Afghanistan comes not from the budget of the Ministry of Defence but instead from the Treasury special reserve. So the changes to the Ministry of Defence that result from today’s review will not affect this funding. Furthermore, every time the chiefs have advised me that a particular change might have implications for our operations in Afghanistan, either now or in the years to come, I have heeded that advice. In fact, we have been and will be providing more for our brave forces in Afghanistan: more equipment to counter the threat from IEDs; more training and training equipment; more protected vehicles such as the Warthog heavy protection vehicle, which will be out there by the end of the year; more surveillance capability, including unmanned aircraft systems; and crucially, at last, the right level of helicopter capability.
Fourthly, this review has been very different from those before it. It has looked at all elements of national security, home and abroad, together, not just defence on its own. It has been led from the top, with all the relevant people around the table, and it will be repeated every five years. This review sets out a step change in the way we protect this country’s security interests: from a Ministry of Defence that is too big, too inefficient and too overspent to a department that is smaller, smarter, and more responsible in its spending; from a strategy over-reliant on military intervention to a higher priority for conflict prevention; from concentrating on conventional threats to a new focus on unconventional threats; and from Armed Forces that are overstretched, underequipped and deployed too often without appropriate planning to the most professional and most flexible modern forces in the world, fully equipped for the challenges of the future.
Let me take each in turn—first, the MoD. Even though the MoD will get real growth in its budget next year, the department will face some significant challenges. So the MoD will cut its estate, dispose of unnecessary assets, renegotiate contracts with industry, and cut its management overheads, including reducing civilian numbers in the MoD by 25,000 by 2015. We will also adjust and simplify civilian and military allowances. The new operational allowance stays, but there will be difficult decisions, although these will be made much easier by the return of the Army from Germany. Taken together, all these changes in the MoD will save £4.7 billion over the spending review period. Getting to grips with procurement is vital. Take the Nimrod programme, for example. It has cost the British taxpayer over £3 billion. The number of aircraft to be procured has fallen from 21 to nine. The cost per aircraft has increased by over 200 per cent and it is over eight years late. Today, we are cancelling it.
Second is the move from military intervention to conflict prevention. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the immense financial and human costs of large-scale military interventions. While we must retain the ability to undertake such operations, we must also get better at treating the causes of instability, not just dealing with the consequences. When we fail to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention, the costs are always far higher. We will expand our capability to deploy military and civilian teams to support stabilisation efforts and build capacity in other states, and we will double our investment in aid for fragile and unstable countries. By 2015, just under a third of the budget of the Department for International Development will be spent on conflict prevention.
Thirdly, we need to focus more of our resources not on the conventional threats of the past but on the unconventional threats of the future. Over the next four years, we will invest more than £500 million of new money in a national cybersecurity programme. This will significantly enhance our ability to detect and defend against cyberattacks and fix shortfalls in the critical cyberinfrastructure on which the whole country now depends. We will continue to prioritise tackling the terrorist threat, both from al-Qaeda and its affiliates and from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland. Although efficiencies will need to be made, we are giving priority to continuing investment in our world-class intelligence agencies and we will sharpen our readiness to act on civil emergencies, energy security, organised crime, counterproliferation and border security.
Fourthly, from Armed Forces that are overstretched and underequipped, we need to move to the most professional and most flexible modern forces in the world. We inherited an Army with scores of tanks in Germany that was until recently forced to face the deadly threat of improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan in Land Rovers designed for Northern Ireland. We have a Royal Air Force hampered in its efforts to support our forces overseas because of an ageing strategic airlift fleet, and a Royal Navy locked into a cycle of ever smaller numbers of ever more expensive ships. We cannot go on like this.
The White Paper we have published today sets out a clear vision for the future structure of our Armed Forces. The precise budgets will be agreed in future spending reviews. My own strong view is that this structure will require year-on-year real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015. Between now and then, the Government are committed to the vision of 2020 set out in this review and will make decisions accordingly. We are also absolutely determined that the MoD will become much more commercially hard-headed in future and adopt a much more aggressive drive for efficiencies. The transition from the mess we inherited to that coherent future force will be a difficult process, especially in the current economic conditions, but we are determined to take the necessary steps.
Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role, so we will retain a large, well equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015—that is 7,000 fewer than today. We will continue to be one of the very few countries able to deploy a self-sustaining, properly equipped brigade-size force anywhere around the world and sustain it indefinitely if needs be; and we will be able to put 30,000 into the field for a major, one-off operation. In terms of the return from Germany, half our personnel should be back by 2015 and the remainder by 2020, and tanks and heavy artillery numbers will be reduced by around 40 per cent. But the introduction of 12 new heavy-lift Chinook helicopters, new protected mobility vehicles and enhanced communications equipment will make the Army more mobile, more flexible and better equipped to face future threats than ever before.
We will also review the structure of our Reserve Forces to ensure we make the most efficient use of their skills, experience and outstanding capabilities. That will be chaired by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, General Houghton, with my honourable friend the Member for Canterbury, who serves in the reserves, acting as his deputy.
The Royal Navy will be similarly equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We are procuring a fleet of the most capable nuclear-powered hunter-killer Astute class submarines anywhere in the world. Able to operate in secret across the world’s oceans, these submarines will also feed vital strategic intelligence back to the UK and to our military forces across the world. We will complete the production of six Type 45 destroyers—one of the most effective multirole destroyers in the world. But we will also start a new programme to develop less expensive, more flexible, modern frigates. Total naval manpower will reduce to around 30,000 by 2015, and by 2020 the total number of frigates and destroyers will reduce from 23 to 19. But the fleet as a whole will be better able to take on today’s tasks, from tackling drug-trafficking and piracy to counterterrorism.
The Royal Air Force will also need to take some tough measures in the coming years to ensure a strong future. We have decided to retire the Harrier, which has served this country so well for 40 years. The Harrier is a remarkably flexible aircraft, but the military advice is that we should sustain the Tornado fleet, as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan. RAF manpower will also reduce to around 33,000 by 2015. Inevitably, this will mean changes in the way in which some RAF bases are used but some are likely to be required by the Army as forces return from Germany. We owe it to communities up and down the country who have supported our Armed Forces for many years to engage with them before final decisions are taken.
By the 2020s, the Royal Air Force will be based around a fleet of two of the most capable fighter jets anywhere in the world: a modernised Typhoon fleet, fully capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, and the Joint Strike Fighter, the world’s most advanced multirole combat jet. This fleet will be complemented by a growing fleet of unmanned air vehicles, and the A400M transport aircraft, together with the existing fleet of C17 aircraft and the future strategic tanker aircraft, will allow us to fly our forces wherever they are needed in the world.
As we refocus our resources on the most likely threats to our security, so we will remain vigilant against all possible threats and retain the capability to react to the unexpected. So, as we cut back on tanks and heavy artillery, we will retain the ability to regenerate those capabilities if needs be. While in the short term the ability to deploy air power from the sea is unlikely to be essential, over the longer term we cannot assume that bases for land-based aircraft will always be available when and where we need them, so we will ensure the UK has carrier strike capability for the future.
This is another area where the last Government got it badly wrong. There is only one thing worse than spending money you do not have and that is buying the wrong things with it, and doing so in the wrong way. The carriers they ordered are unable to work effectively with our key defence partners, the United States or France. They had failed to plan so that carriers and planes would arrive at the same time. They ordered the more expensive, less capable version of the Joint Strike Fighter to fly off the carriers, and they signed contracts so that we were left in a situation where even cancelling the second carrier would cost more than to build it. I have this in written confirmation from BAE systems. That is the legacy that we inherited—an appalling legacy that the British people have every right to be angry about. But I say to them today that this Government will act in the national interest. We would not have started from here but the right decisions are now being made in the right way and for the right reasons.
It will take time to rectify these mistakes but this is how we will do so. We will build both carriers but hold one in extended readiness. We will fit the “cats and traps”—the catapults and arrester gear—to the operational carrier. That will allow our allies to operate from our operational carrier and allow us to buy the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter, which is more capable, less expensive, has a longer range and carries more weapons. We will also aim to bring the planes and carriers in at the same time.
We cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge so we will retain and renew the ultimate insurance policy—our independent nuclear deterrent, which guards this country round the clock every day of the year. We have completed a value-for-money review of our future deterrent plans. As a result we can: extend the life of the Vanguard class so that the first replacement submarine is not required until 2028; reduce the number of operational launch tubes on those new submarines from 12 to eight; reduce the number of warheads on our submarines at sea from 48 to 40; and reduce our stockpile of operational warheads from fewer than 160 to fewer than 120. The next phase of the programme to renew our deterrent will start by the end of this year. As a result of the changes to the programme, the decision to start construction of the new submarines need not now be taken until around 2016. We will save around £1.2 billion and defer a further £2 billion of spending from the next 10 years. So yes, we will save money, but we will retain and renew a credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent that will stand constant guard over this nation’s security.
Finally, the immense contribution of our highly professional Special Forces is necessarily largely unreported but their immense capability is recognised across the world. We are significantly increasing our investment in our Special Forces to ensure that they remain at the leading edge of operational capability prepared to meet current and future threats, and maintaining their unique and specialist role. This enhanced capability will allow them to remain at extremely high readiness for emergency operations through enhanced logistics, medical support and greater intelligence capability to support their operations.
We were left a situation where we had: a budget £38 billion overspent; Armed Forces at war, overstretched, underequipped and ill prepared for the challenges of the future; and the biggest budget deficit in post-war history. I believe that we have begun to deal with all those things, sorting out the legacy and fitting Britain’s defences for the future. I commend the Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am not surprised by the tone of the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. She graced a Government who leaked their way for 13 years, not making announcements to Parliament.
Lord Strathclyde
It is, frankly, rich for noble Lords opposite to jeer about reading press briefings given not by members of the Government but by others. You only have to read the memoirs written by former distinguished Secretaries of State from the former Labour Government to understand just how much backbiting there was in the Government of whom the noble Baroness was a member.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
That is a very interesting point but it has no bearing on the questions that I asked the noble Lord. I would say to him that one of the most important strategies on the security of this country was published just yesterday, but the Government did not grace this Chamber with their presence so that we could hold them accountable. However, we did hear the Home Secretary on the “Today” programme, and we were fully briefed about it in the press.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I would not have mentioned leaks if the noble Baroness had not spent the first two minutes of her reply asking me questions on them.
As for the two reviews that we have published, yesterday we published the national security strategy, which I commend to your Lordships. It pointed the way for today's announcement on the strategic defence and security review, and the entire purpose was for the Prime Minister to make a comprehensive Statement today. Again I accuse noble Lords opposite. They never did a comprehensive review combining the strategic overview and the defence strategy in a single document. If they had done so in the round then we would not have been left in the mess that we now have.
The noble Baroness asks why we did it so quickly. I say to her: why did they take so long to repeat the exercise that they did in 1998? It was 12 years. Maybe they were concentrating on it but never came to a conclusion. This Government were pushed into action because of the appalling inheritance—the legacy—that we have discovered: the £38 billion overspend that will have to be paid for over the course of the next few years.
On an area which I think the noble Baroness and I will agree on—our role in Afghanistan—I can confirm that nothing in today’s announcement will have an impact on our efforts in Afghanistan. We believe that the helicopters that we have, building on the announcements that the previous Government made, are enough, and we have announced today that we will buy 12 additional heavy-lift Chinook helicopters which in the long term will make a substantial difference.
On the future of St Athan, as announced by the Secretary of State for Defence this morning, the defence training rationalisation programme has, regrettably, been terminated. However, given the significant investment in the area, St Athan remains ideally placed as a future site for defence training.
Let me turn to the capability gap, as it is called, on the carrier strike force. We may well not have been driven to the decisions that we have made about this if we had not found things as they were when we came into government in May 2010. We believe that there is a military case for a carrier strike capability, but not one that relies on the differently configured Joint Strike Fighters. That is why we have decided to invest even more money into making sure that there is a “cat and trap” capability on one of these aircraft carriers. That means that we will be able to co-operate with our allies in NATO and the EU and with the French and the Americans, who will be able to use our platform. In the short term, we believe that we have the overflying rights and the land-based runways to be able to continue to maintain air cover. In the long term, of course, none of us knows whether that will be possible: hence the reason why we have maintained the carrier programme.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, first, I should like to ask my noble friend whether we can have a major debate on this review in this House. Clearly, 20 minutes following a Statement on a matter of this importance is unsatisfactory. I am sure that the House would welcome a full debate. The coalition Government had a difficult task, given that the carriers had been irresponsibly ordered. Industry quite clearly once again has run rings around the MoD and the previous Government. On these Benches, we welcome the deferment of the main gate decision on Trident, the extra expenditure on our special forces and cybersecurity, the focus on Afghanistan and the pulling back from Germany.
I have four questions to ask my noble friend. First, the Prime Minister wants us to remain “a major military power”. Is not 2 per cent of gross domestic product just too thin to maintain that capability? Secondly, what will the savings be on the phasing out of our Harrier force? Thirdly, is it not time to look more imaginatively at our Reserve Forces? One only has to look at what America does with its National Guard. We should start thinking outside the box, which, surely, would link in with the Prime Minister’s belief in a big society. Finally, sadly, very little in this Statement refers to or discusses co-operation with France. Will my noble friend say a little more about that?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, are we a major military power? Of course we are. We are the sixth richest nation in the world. We will have the fourth largest military budget in the world. With the modernisation that is taking place, we will be extremely powerful and will be able to reach across the globe. The 2 per cent figure of GDP is the NATO target. We will continue to meet that target throughout the next two years. I do not have the exact figure for the Harrier savings, but they are substantial: possibly around £1 billion. In the Statement, the Prime Minister announced that there would be a comprehensive study of the reserves by General Houghton, and it is entirely right that he should do so.
I am sure the entire House will gratefully receive the information that there will be a debate on the Floor of this House. I understand that it has been pencilled in for 12 November and I hope that interested noble Lords will come to it. We hope to make further announcements shortly on France, but we seek to create a stronger partnership with that country.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
My Lords, having done, with honourable colleagues, a strategic defence review that was consultative, inclusive, policy-led and convincing, perhaps I can say to the Leader of the House that I know a strategic review, I have done a strategic review, and this is not a strategic review.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
Instead, will it not be seen by the country as a cobbled-together exercise on the back of a letter from the Treasury calling for deep and random cuts in the defence budget? As such, it is unworthy of those who serve in Her Majesty’s forces today. Is he not concerned about promoting a policy review that will have aircraft carriers without aircraft, an Army that is at war reduced by 7,000 operational troops, and really nothing at all said about how we will blend in and mix with our NATO allies to meet the challenges of the future? I also ask about procurement, of which the Leader of the House, and I daresay the Prime Minister as well, are making much at present. Why have they called for yet another review? Last year, Mr Bernard Grey made a comprehensive and detailed study of the procurement crisis in the Ministry of Defence. It was a clear analysis and the recommendations were accepted. Why has his offer to help the Government been completely snubbed? Finally, on the cancellation of the Nimrod programme, what is going to happen to maritime reconnaissance capability in this country?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, was blessed as a Secretary of State for Defence in that he was the first Labour Secretary of State for Defence to follow on from a Conservative Government, under which the public finances were properly looked after. He was able to make the money and take the time. That luxury was not afforded to this coalition Administration when taking over after 13 years. If there had been a little more strategic economic thinking by the last Government, we would not be in the state that we are in.
The noble Lord is right, however, to ask questions about procurement. We have uncovered a number of issues and there will need to be major studies on precisely how this is done. I hope that we will be able to say more about that in our debate next month.
Lord Boyce
My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of WS Atkins and a number of pro bono roles with various service charities and organisations. I cannot say that I welcome the Statement on this cash-driven defence review, and I certainly cannot possibly dignify it with the word “strategic”. It will be viewed with dismay by our hardworking and operationally pressed sailors, marines, soldiers and airmen. Can the Leader of the House inform noble Lords, with regard to naval reductions in the destroyer frigate force levels, what operational tasks currently being undertaken by an already overstretched fleet will be concomitantly dropped and how this will resonate with our allies?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we believe that the newly configured naval forces will be able to do all the standing tasks they have been asked to do. The Navy will have the helicopters, the new frigates, the submarines, the renewed Trident and the carriers that are being built. Of all the Armed Forces, I would hope that the Navy will feel able to support the decisions that have been taken.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord of the bitter disappointment that is being felt at the decision not to proceed with the defence training academy at St Athan. This is not so much a strategic defence review, but more a butchery of our defence capability. I was a Defence Minister when we did a lot of work in preparing for this academy, which was intended to provide a world-class training facility for our Armed Forces, as they rightly deserve. Even in the most difficult times, it is utterly insane to eat our seed corn when we desperately need to invest in training for the future. Will the Leader of the House go back to his Cabinet colleagues and say that, so far as St Athan is concerned, they need to think again?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I have already mentioned the case of St Athan. This decision comes despite strenuous efforts being made by the MoD in helping the consortium make the project affordable and in developing the commercial structure necessary within the given time. I should make it clear that this decision was not taken as part of the SDSR and that the MoD still intends to move towards greater collective training on a reduced training estate.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, this review has surely shown that we are overdue a serious national conversation about the identity of our country and its interests in a dark, volatile and troubled world. Does the Leader of the House agree that a nationwide debate on the questions raised by the review would be much welcomed and long overdue? A national conversation on defence and security issues may indeed have little impact on this review, but it might help to frame and shape its successor.
Lord Strathclyde
I agree with the right reverend Prelate. In the national security strategy document, which was published yesterday afternoon, there is a page on national security and British values which I think he would find interesting and like to play a part in. There should be a discussion, a debate and what he called a big conversation with the general public about these matters because they affect us all.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
In paying tribute to our service men and women, I have to say that they deserve a little better than this in terms of the time spent on, the depth of and the range of consultation. On the presentation of the argument, I would much prefer not to have the party politics in it.
I wish to make a number of points in response to the contribution of the Leader of the House because he got one or two things wrong. First, on the carriers, can he confirm the sequence by which the Harrier jump jets will be removed? He may not know it but our present carriers are actually through-deck cruisers with a very short runway. If you did not have the short take-off and vertical landing aircraft, other aircraft would fall off the carrier’s edge on leaving and arriving. This is why we ordered the variant from the Americans. Can the noble Lord confirm that the Harrier jump jets are being phased out? If they are, we will not have anything which can go on the present aircraft carriers. Given that the whole point of an aircraft carrier is to carry aircraft which can leave and join it, it would appear that we will have a massive capability gap.
Secondly, will the noble Lord respond to the point about the reduction of our troop numbers? I confess that I thought it was grossly unwise to announce in advance to the Taliban and everyone else when we intended to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. It reinforces that error when we tell them not only that we have the option of withdrawing but that we are reducing our numbers so that we have to withdraw. Is it an absolute commitment to reduce troop numbers irrespective of conditions on the ground in Afghanistan?
On cyber, I welcome the £0.5 billion increase provided that it does not include money that is meant to be allocated to the intercept modernisation programme. If it does, it will be grossly inadequate and will completely undermine our capacity to mount the surveillance of communications in and out of this country which has been the basis of our counterterrorist intelligence efforts.
Finally, will the noble Lord confirm that, although this is the biggest reduction in our fighting capability since 1945, every single element of additional fighting power that he mentioned today was ordered by the previous Government?
Lord Strathclyde
I am delighted that the noble Lord welcomes the announcement on dealing with cyberterrorism. It is an important new threat which we take seriously. However, I do not agree with his remarks which gave the impression that there was no consultation and no discussion with anyone at any stage. Of course there was. There had to be in order to be able to make the decisions that we have made today.
We have been in Afghanistan since 2003; we are aiming to leave by 2015. Given that we will have been there for 12 years and that we have put enormous resources into training the local police and the army, it is fair enough to have given a five-year warning of our intention to leave. However, we will not leave Afghanistan completely. DfID, with its enormous budget, will clearly wish to play a role.
There will be a gap in air cover after the retirement of the Harriers, which are due to be disbanded by April 2011. We take no pleasure in making that decision; it means that one of our carriers will immediately be withdrawn. However, we believe that our land-based runways and overflying rights will give us the global reach by jet aircraft that we need.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, many of us will have found it very difficult to listen to the chastisements that my noble friend has received from the other side of the House when some noble Lords here bear a very heavy responsibility for the mess that we are now in. Previous Ministers placed orders with money that they did not have. That now threatens employment and has made inevitable the Statement which my noble friend has had to repeat today. Anybody who studied this matter with any interest knew that, once those carriers were ordered—I think that it was in the time of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson—it became a shambolic programme from then on. We still do not have any carriers. Everybody knew the pressure, problems and lumpiness that it would create for the naval budget. The difficulties that my noble friend and the Prime Minister have had to cope with are simply enormous. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will know that his strategic defence review never said that we were going to be in Afghanistan or that we were going to fight a second Iraq war. The then Government made no adequate attempt to adjust the policy and the resources to meet those new demands. We now have to get the resources in place based on our best estimate of the risks that we face and then, if the situation changes and the unexpected happens, be ready to change as well.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the House will know just how grateful I am to hear my noble friend, with all the common sense that he speaks born of experience and of having given these warnings over many years while we were in opposition. I entirely agree with him that we must now look to the future, deal with the damage of the past and focus our best resources on getting the best result.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I am afraid that I have to share the view of a number of noble Lords and, I think, a number of people across the country that this review is not really strategic but is cost driven. However, we are where we are and a Government have to govern. Therefore, they have to explain what they are going to do. It is no good having some political knockabout about what might have gone on in the past.
I shall focus on the carriers. I happen to have an interest in them in that I have spent quite a large amount of my life on aircraft carriers, so I think that I know quite a lot about them. I am delighted by the decision that we will go ahead with the two new aircraft carriers. That fits in exactly with the view that I think all of us have of the United Kingdom; namely, that we need global reach and that we are still a great power. A lot of people might deny that, but I argue that we are. We are one of the six richest nations in the world. We have commitments all around the world; we have huge investments around the world; we run global shipping; we are an important and great power. There is no doubt that, when it comes to flexibility and capability for global reach, aircraft carriers have it in spades. Therefore, I find it extraordinary that a member of the coalition should say, “Well, we only got another one because they were bloody well ordered and it was going to cost so much”. It was a good decision to go for them, but I am concerned by the inconsistencies in what is being done.
The Leader of the House mentioned that we will put cats and traps in only one carrier. That means that, for a percentage of the time—I would be interested to know what his assessment of it is—there will be no carrier available because, if you have one of something, it cannot always be there. You can bet your bottom dollar that, at the time when you really need it, it will be deep in refit; that is my experience. Therefore, I believe we should have cats and traps on both of them and run both of them.
There is also an inconsistency in how we go from where we are today to there. In a hospital where there were old-type scanners, one would not dream of saying, “We’ll get new ones in 10 years but we will stop using the old ones for 10 years”. That would be bonkers, and it is bonkers to get rid of the Harriers. The noble Lord says that it was a military judgment that the Harriers and not the Tornados should go, but the Harriers’ job cannot be done by any other aircraft while the Tornados’ can. I should be interested to know why that decision was made.
Finally, the Leader of the House mentioned DfID. I find it extraordinary that we give money to India and China, which are developing carrier programmes, yet we have difficulty in funding ourselves. Will we continue doing this in future?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, to take the last point first, the DfID budget is protected and substantial and was built up by the previous Administration. That department needs to decide how to make its priorities in view of the Government’s overall priorities. On the whole, I welcomed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead. He certainly started off in a very positive light. He asked one straightforward question about the carriers and the cats and traps. We have given a commitment to putting cats and traps on to one carrier—that will go ahead—but we have not yet decided finally on what should happen to the second one. We do not need to make that decision now but, when we do, it will be widely announced to the House.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord needs to calm himself down. It is well precedented over many years that 20 minutes of Back-Bench time is allowed after a Statement. I know that this is a considerable and important Statement, which is why the usual channels have already agreed that there should be a whole day’s debate devoted to this subject. I know that many noble Lords wanted to speak, including three former Secretaries of State for Defence whom I can see on the other side. We should hear from them all, and I look forward to the opportunity. But we should now carry on with the next business. That would be in accordance with our rules.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
This is a self-regulating House and the Leader of the House has made my point for me in pointing out all the people who want to speak. Just because we have always done something in the past does not mean to say that we do not have to change it in future.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, of course this is a self-regulating House, but it is not an anarchists’ House. We do not believe in anarchy; we do not make it up as we go along. We have broad rules and a broad framework, which are supported by most noble Lords in the House.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The House is due to finish at six o’clock tonight and everyone will be going home because there is no other business. This is the most important issue. Tomorrow we will have a Statement on the comprehensive spending review. Will we get only 20 minutes on that? That would be absolutely outrageous. This House needs to pull itself together and make some decisions and not just do something because we have always done it.
House of Lords: Conduct of Members
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I inform the House about the publication today of three reports from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. The three reports, which follow investigations by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, relate to the conduct of the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Paul, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. The reports will be published this afternoon and are now available to all Members in the Printed Paper Office.
The House now has a duty to consider these three reports. It has been agreed by the usual channels that the three reports will be debated together on Thursday this week, 21 October, as the first business after Oral Questions. At the end of the debate, the House will be asked to take decisions on the reports and, subsequently, on the recommendations of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct.