Privileges and Conduct Committee: Fourth Report
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years, 1 month 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(14 years, 1 month 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(14 years, 1 month 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.
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years, 1 month 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 Massey of Darwen set down for today shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of Baroness Wall of New Barnet to three hours.
Agriculture: CAP Direct Payments
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, let us hear from the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and then from my noble friend.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
I am most grateful. Will the Minister reassure the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that successive French Governments have stated repeatedly that there will be no change whatsoever to single farm payments after 2013? Will he also therefore reassure the British taxpayer that they will continue to pay for French farming for the foreseeable future?
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 26 July to allow the Consolidated Fund Bill and any Finance Bill brought from the Commons to be taken through all their remaining stages that day.
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate set down for today shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of Lord McKenzie of Luton to three hours.
Equality Act 2010 (Consequential Amendments, Saving and Supplementary Provisions) Order 2010
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
House of Lords: Allowances
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
House of Lords Allowance
That—
1.– (1) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, should be entitled to an allowance in respect of each day of attendance on or after 1 October 2010.
(2) “Attendance” means attendance—
(a) at a sitting of this House or a Committee of this House, or
(b) on such other Parliamentary business as may be determined by the House Committee.
(3) The amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance should be—
(a) £300, or
(b) if paragraph (4) applies, £150.
(4) This paragraph applies if—
(a) the attendance in question is away from Westminster, or
(b) the attendance is at Westminster but the Member elects that this paragraph should apply.
2.– (1) Accordingly, the following provisions should not apply in relation to expenses incurred on or after 1 October 2010—
(a) paragraph (1)(d) of the Resolution of 22nd July 1980 (office costs allowance),
(b) paragraph (1) of the Resolution of 25th July 1991 (day and night subsistence), and
(c) paragraph 4 of the Resolution of 10th November 2004 (overnight subsistence on visits away from the House).
(2) The limit on the expenses incurred from 1 August 2010 to 30 September 2010 which a Member of this House may recover under paragraph (1)(d) of the Resolution of 22nd July 1980 (office costs allowance) should be the amount obtained by multiplying—
(a) the number of days in that period specified by the Member, subject to a maximum of 40 days, and
(b) the appropriate amount for expenses incurred in that period (calculated in accordance with paragraph (3)(b) of the Resolution of 20th July 1994).
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, on 28 June, I made a Statement in this House on the merits of a new proposal for the remuneration of Peers. Today, I introduce two resolutions that will put the essence of that Statement into effect.
These resolutions will have an impact on all Peers and, while I welcome any interventions that Peers may wish to make during the course of my speech, I hope that noble Lords will intervene only if any clarification is required because my opening remarks will, I hope, lay out the ground and I will pick up queries when I wind up at the end of this afternoon's debate. I echo my noble friend the Chief Whip: there will be an opportunity for all Peers who wish to take part to do so.
We have before us today a final set of proposals for a new system of financial support for Members which, if approved, will come into effect on 1 October this year. This is not a new subject. The discredited parliamentary expenses regime is one that has caused this House much difficulty in the past, but today we have the opportunity to put that behind us and approve a new scheme that is direct, transparent and accountable, a scheme that is simple and not open to abuse, a scheme that will lay to rest the risk of the scandal of claims for so-called second homes that so damaged the House, a scheme that is fair in treating all Members alike.
When I made a Statement to the House, putting forward the outline of a radical new scheme for one single allowance to be paid on the basis of attendance on each sitting day, a number of comments were made on it. That proposal has now been considered by the House Committee, which brought its wisdom to bear and, as noble Lords would expect, has refined the proposal. The result is a sensible and workable scheme, which I have no hesitation in supporting today.
The scheme is set before your Lordships’ House today in the form of two resolutions in my name, and the Motion to approve the House Committee report in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, Chairman of Committees. It may be helpful if I set out some of the detail of the proposals contained in the Motions on the Order Paper. I will do so partly on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who will speak towards the end of the debate and, in doing so, will be able to respond to any questions Members raise about the details of the House Committee proposals.
The central element of my original proposal remains a single daily allowance paid on the basis of attendance on any sitting day. The allowance will be set at £300. This can be claimed if a Member has attended the House or a Committee of the House. Next, the reduced rate of £150 also remains a central part of the proposal. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the resolution set out the circumstances in which a Member may claim the reduced rate. First, for attendances at Westminster, at a sitting of the House or a Committee of the House, any Member may elect, on a monthly basis, to claim the reduced rate,
“where they consider it appropriate”.
I am aware that the question of when a Member might claim this reduced rate was an issue of concern to some. As the House Committee report states at paragraph 6:
“It is difficult to arrive at specific criteria for measurement of a Member’s contribution to the work of the House”.
It will therefore be a matter for Members to judge their own circumstances in deciding whether it is appropriate to claim the full or reduced rate. Secondly, the reduced rate applies if the attendance on any day is on authorised business away from Westminster. Members attending such business will already be in receipt of reimbursement for the costs of accommodation, food and transport. These two categories of authorised business for which the reduced rate applies are the same as those for which Members may claim financial support under the current system. They are travel on official Select Committee business or on parliamentary delegations to certain interparliamentary assemblies; and travel in connection with certain authorised business such as CPA and IPU.
The new scheme, if approved, will come into effect on 1 October. Up to that point, the current scheme continues to have effect. In respect of the additional office costs allowance, the resolution makes it clear that Members may continue to recover office costs up to a maximum 40 days per year while the House is not sitting. This will apply for the period from 1 August to 30 September. The House Committee decided that this provided a degree of certainty to those Members who employ staff and who may otherwise be affected by the scheme agreed today. I have accepted that advice.
When I made my Statement to the House in June, several noble Lords raised the question of whether the new allowance would or should be taxable. Tax is not paid on the current expenses system on the basis that membership of the House is neither an employment nor an office. Any change to this position would require primary legislation and reconsideration of the level—£300—at which the attendance allowance is set. The Government currently have no plans to legislate to change the tax status of the scheme that is on the table today. If and when there is full reform of the House, the whole basis of financial support would need to be reviewed.
The issue of travel expenses is properly House Committee territory, but it may be helpful if I set out, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, the recommendations on travel made by the committee. In line with the SSRB and the Wakeham group reports, the committee recommended that car parking and road tolls should be treated as “permissible travelling expenses” but that Members should not be able to claim for the London congestion charge. Provision for this is made in the text of my second resolution. Also in line with the SSRB and the Wakeham group reports, the committee recommended that, where Members do not make use of the House of Lords travel credit card, travel expenses should be reimbursed only on the basis of receipts or tickets. Equally in line with those reports, the committee recommended that claims for vehicle mileage must be accompanied by details of the individual journey and that only one claim per journey per vehicle can be made. The committee recommended that only those Members who live outside Greater London may claim reimbursement for travel expenses to and from Westminster.
The committee made a number of recommendations on the class of travel for Members and for Members’ spouses, civil partners and dependants. Members may be reimbursed for train travel up to the cost of a standard open ticket, whatever class they ultimately choose to travel. The committee recommended that the same rules should apply in respect of travel by Members’ spouses, civil partners and dependants.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
This is a quick question. Does the description,
“ceiling cost of a standard … open ticket”,
apply after the application of a senior citizen discount or any other discount card that Members may hold or does it apply only to the standard open ticket?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the standard open ticket is the price ceiling on which all claims will be judged.
That neatly brings me towards the end of my words. The committee recommended that the new arrangements be put in place for the duration of the present Parliament. I fully support that approach.
This has been a long and at times difficult journey to reform the discredited expenses regime, but it is a journey that is coming to an end. I hope that today the House will approve the Motions before it so that the reforms can be made and, when the House returns in October, we can start afresh under a simpler, more transparent allowance scheme that can command public confidence. I commend the scheme and I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he say what the position is with regard to travel by standard class? If Members are travelling with officials who are entitled to first-class travel, will the officials be able to travel first class while Members of this House and Members of the House of Commons have to sit at the back?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, suggests will never arise.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I strongly support the Government’s resolutions and the House Committee’s report. The House Committee report puts forward changes to the system of financial support for Members of your Lordships’ House, based on proposals from the Leader of the House. The report rightly describes them as important changes. I agree with these proposed changes. I also agree that the changes proposed by the ad hoc group set up by your Lordships’ House and chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, form a marked move away from the current system of financial support for Members of this House.
The report of the ad hoc group sets out in some detail how we have got to this point. The background to the issues is also summarised in the report from the House Committee, so there is no need for me to repeat that history. This has been a long and complicated matter, and I add my thanks to all those involved who have worked so hard to get to the point where what is on the Order Paper today is, I believe, the right way forward.
First and foremost, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and all the other Members of the House who served on the ad hoc group that was appointed by the House to examine these issues in the wake of the report from the Senior Salaries Review Body.
I also pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the decisive action that he has taken in bringing forward the alternative proposal, set out in the Wakeham report, that forms the resolution and the report before the House today. I know from my time as Leader of the House, and in Government, that these are very difficult issues to address, and I believe that the noble Lord has performed a considerable service for this House and its Members in bringing forward the proposals that are before us today.
In considering these proposals, we need to bear in mind two fundamental points: the nature of this House, and its cost. On the first point, I can do no better than to quote from the introduction to the report of the ad hoc group:
“Membership of this House is not an office nor is it an employment. From their appointment to the House, Members are unsalaried volunteers and they offer their experience, time and commitment freely because of a strong sense of duty and public service. The fact that the House of Lords is an unsalaried House is fundamental to its nature and character; to how and what it does as a House, and to the issue of financial support to enable Members to carry out their Parliamentary duties and to discharge their Parliamentary responsibilities”.
That is exactly right.
The second point concerns the cost of this House. The ad hoc group says that the cost of your Lordships’ House is “relatively low”. Again, that is exactly right. The report points out that not only are the total costs of this House currently less than one-third of the costs of the House of Commons but the cost of the current expenses scheme for Members of this House is, at around £19 million, just 15 per cent of the running costs of this House and a fraction of the comparable cost of £150 million in the Commons. An unsalaried House, a low-cost House—that is where we are.
We all accept that we are in a time of considerable economic difficulty. We may well—indeed, we do—have serious political disagreements with the coalition Government about how best to resolve these matters, but all sides accept that we are in straitened economic times. I welcome, therefore, the efforts made by the SSRB, the Wakeham group and the Leader of the House to reform the old system of expenses in your Lordships’ House, which, as the ad hoc group says,
“grew up in piecemeal fashion over time”,
while keeping costs under control.
Both the full debate in the Chamber on 14 December last year and the responses of Members detailed in the ad hoc group’s report made it clear that many Members of your Lordships’ House had real reservations about the SSRB’s proposals. Many believed that what the SSRB proposed was unnecessarily complicated, cumbersome and bureaucratic. The Wakeham group sought to deal with those issues, but at the same time recognised that the context for them had changed—first, because of the proposals made in March this year by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for changes to the system of allowances in the House of Commons, and secondly because of the changed political context following the outcome of the general election, particularly the proposals from the coalition Government for further reform of your Lordships’ House.
Accordingly, the ad hoc group recognised that the emergence of an alternative proposal would be worth consideration, reducing the level of support currently set aside for overnight accommodation and combining it with the daily allowance as a single allowance claimable by all Members. That is the essence of the proposal before us today in the report from the House Committee and in the Motion from the Leader of the House. As the ad hoc group itself says:
“If this change were to be made, it would be simple, easy to implement, easy to administer and easy to explain to the public”.
I agree.
I am of course aware that not everyone in the House agrees, including on my own Benches. I know that there are real concerns about equity, about the impact on Members travelling to attend the House from far distances and about other points. I understand those concerns; I respect those who feel them, and who either have voiced them to me privately or within our political group or may voice them in the Chamber today. But no system of financial support is perfect. All systems of financial support have to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and simplicity. I believe that the package in front of the House gets that balance right.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, this has been an interesting and lively debate in which many noble Lords have participated, and in which a considerable number of other Members have listened carefully to what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has already responded with his customary dexterity to those issues that fall within the remit of the House Committee, and I would not seek to add anything other than my full support to his response.
It falls to me to respond to noble Lords who raised issues about the proposed scheme and the provisions in the two resolutions on the Order Paper. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for her handsome tribute to me. The House needs to understand that none of this would have been possible without a certain amount of co-operation, understanding and agreement among the usual channels, the Convenor of the Cross Benches and my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his group. Nothing has been simple about this. It required a great deal of thought and hard work. Many reports were commissioned and it took a great deal of time to bring us to this moment. I am painfully aware that this scheme does not and will not suit everybody but in our combined judgment, it was the best we could possibly do to suit as many Peers as possible.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said that we searched for a balance and got it about right, that is the right approach. It may be that we got it completely wrong and that there will be a deleterious effect on the attendance of the House. Of course, we will have to come back to review it if such difficulties arise. The Convenor of the Cross Benches was particularly concerned about that.
A number of issues were raised by my noble friend Lord Dholakia and others on a range of detailed issues. In the end, two speeches cast a substantially more cautious note about the direction in which we are going. The first was by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and the second was by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. I understand where they are coming from although I had difficulties following entirely the thought processes of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and what alternative he was suggesting. While he was speaking I read again the words in the Wakeham report. To me it is clear. Paragraph 5.57 states:
“Since the publication of the SSRB’S report, and the appointment of this group, two key developments have taken place which we believe should cause those tasked with putting forward a new scheme to consider whether an alternative approach to that set out in this report … should be put forward”.
Paragraph 5.58 states:
“The first development was the publication of IPSA’s proposals for the House of Commons on 29 March 2010”,
and the second was,
“the new government’s proposals to reform the House of Lords in time for the next General Election”.
That was the clear signpost by the Wakeham committee to examine alternative proposals. Indeed Recommendation 17 states:
“We recommend that consideration might also be given to the case for putting in place a simplified allowance”.
I know that the noble Lord does not agree with that and we could spend a great deal of time on the process, but let us deal with the substance. I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for what she said. She almost took the words from my mouth but put it rather better and more elegantly than I would have done. Equity can be viewed in different ways, but the flat-rate scheme that we are proposing—that I am proposing—today treats all noble Lords in exactly the same way. We recognise that Peers have to travel from afar through the travel arrangements. Under the scheme, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be able to claim, for a four-day week, £1,200 per week. I know that that is not for every week, because sometimes the House does not sit, but it is a substantial amount of money. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, described extremely well the differences between what was proposed by the SSRB and this proposal.
I have one unhappiness with what the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said. That was his accusation that I had said that, broadly, this scheme would be cost-neutral and that he did not think that it would be. It is worth me explaining what I meant. The £300 is 11 per cent less than the current £335.50 maximum. It is 12 per cent less than the £340 maximum suggested by the SSRB. As my noble friend Lord Marlesford pointed out, it saves a considerable bureaucratic and administrative cost. My calculation was that if only 20 per cent of Peers claimed the £150 reduced fee, the scheme will cost no more than it currently does.
This time next year, we may or may not be in a position to make that judgment. Of course, it is still open to Peers to charge nothing at all. Extraordinarily—we should talk about this more—last year, 13 per cent of Peers attended the House of Lords, made their contribution and decided not to charge anything. They should be recognised for having done so.
It was about 40 years ago that the expenses scheme was brought in.
Lord Tebbit
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but are his sums on the assumption of an unchanged number of Peers, or do they take into account the enormously increased number of Peers?
Lord Strathclyde
It is entirely typical of my noble friend to ask such an excellent question. My figures were, of course, on a like-for-like basis. He will recognise that phrase from his time in government.
Lord Sewel
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Has he any calculation of the effect of moving from £161 a day to £300 a day for those who do not claim the overnight allowance?
Lord Strathclyde
No, my Lords, because I do not know how many of those who claim the £160 amount would claim the £300 amount, so I cannot help the noble Lord with that. It is my view that, on a like-for-like basis, it is broadly cost-neutral. The House is increasing in size, but was in any case, so it was going to cost more. I hope that we will get a worthy and worthwhile contribution from the new Members of this House who come here to play their part.
I was just saying that it is now 40 years since the original expenses scheme was introduced. I have no idea whether it will be another 40 years before we return to the issue. I know that it is the dream of the Deputy Prime Minister—and me—that long before that, we will have a fully reformed House, in which case there will be an entirely different regime.
The resolutions and Motions before us today will allow us to return in October to start afresh with a new scheme of financial assistance for Members. They allow us to put past indiscretions very much behind us. I believe that they will give us the confidence to look forward and concentrate fully on the excellent work that this House does in holding the Government to account. I very much hope that the House will now approve the resolutions before us.
House of Lords: Travel Expenses
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
Travel Expenses
That the following provisions should apply to journeys commenced on or after 1 October 2010-
(a) in respect of journeys by car, motorcycle or bicycle for which Members of this House are entitled to a mileage allowance, Members should also be entitled to recover road tolls (other than congestion charges), and
(b) in respect of journeys by public transport for which Members are entitled to recover fares, Members should also be entitled to recover the costs of parking at stations, ports or airports (where it is appropriate to do so).