Saville Inquiry

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I hope that it will now be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement being made in another place by the Prime Minister on the Saville inquiry. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement.

Today, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is publishing the report of the Saville inquiry, the tribunal set up by the previous Government to investigate the tragic events of 30 January 1972—a day more commonly known as Bloody Sunday. We have acted in good faith by publishing the tribunal's findings as quickly as possible after the general election.

I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our Army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve.

But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt. There is nothing equivocal. There are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong. Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of Support Company who went into the Bogside,

‘did so as a result of an order ... which should have not been given’,

by their commander; that, on balance, the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army; that:

‘None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm’;

that:

‘There was some firing by republican paramilitaries … but … none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of the civilian casualties’;

and that:

‘In no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire’.

He also finds that Support Company,

‘reacted by losing their self-control ... forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training’,

with,

‘a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline’.

He finds that:

‘Despite the contrary evidence given by soldiers … none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers’,

and that many of the soldiers,

‘knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing’.

What is more, Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying. The report refers to one person who was shot while,

‘crawling … away from the soldiers’.

Another was shot, in all probability,

‘when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground’,

and a father was,

‘hit and injured by Army gunfire after he had gone to ... tend his son’.

For those looking for statements of innocence, Saville says:

‘The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries’,

and, crucially, that,

‘none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting’.

For those people who were looking for the report to use terms like ‘murder’ and ‘unlawful killing’, I remind the House that these judgments are not matters for a tribunal or for us as politicians to determine.

These are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say, but you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth. So there is no point in trying to soften or equivocate what is in this report. It is clear from the tribunal's authoritative conclusions that the events of Bloody Sunday were in no way justified.

I know some people wonder whether, nearly 40 years on from an event, a Prime Minister needs to issue an apology. For someone of my generation, this is a period we feel we have learned about rather than lived through. But what happened should never, ever have happened. The families of those who died should not have had to live with the pain and hurt of that day, and a lifetime of loss. Some members of our Armed Forces acted wrongly. The Government are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the Armed Forces. And for that, on behalf of the Government, and indeed our country, I am deeply sorry.

Just as this report is clear that the actions of that day were unjustifiable, so too is it clear in some of its other findings. Those looking for premeditation, those looking for a plan, those looking for a conspiracy involving senior politicians or senior members of the Armed Forces—they will not find it in this report.

Indeed, Lord Saville finds no evidence that the events of Bloody Sunday were premeditated. He concludes that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland Governments, and the Army, neither tolerated nor encouraged,

‘the use of unjustified lethal force’.

He makes no suggestion of a government cover-up, and he credits the UK Government with working towards a peaceful political settlement in Northern Ireland.

The report also specifically deals with the actions of key individuals in the Army, in politics and beyond, including Major General Ford, Brigadier MacLellan and Lieutenant Colonel Wilford. In each case, the tribunal's findings are clear. It also does the same for Martin McGuinness. It specifically finds he was present and probably armed with a ‘sub-machine gun’, but concludes that,

‘we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire’.

While in no way justifying the events of 30 January 1972, we should acknowledge the background to the events of Bloody Sunday. Since 1969 the security situation in Northern Ireland had been declining significantly. Three days before Bloody Sunday, two RUC officers, one a Catholic, were shot by the IRA in Londonderry—the first police officers killed in the city during the Troubles. A third of the city of Derry had become a no-go area for the RUC and the Army. In the end, 1972 was to prove Northern Ireland's bloodiest year by far, with nearly 500 people killed.

Let us also remember, Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the service that the British Army gave in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007. This was known as Operation Banner, the longest continuous operation in British military history, spanning 38 years and in which over 250,000 people served. Our Armed Forces displayed enormous courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Acting in support of the police, they played a major part in setting the conditions that have made peaceful politics possible. And over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives to that cause. Without their work the peace process would not have happened. Of course, some mistakes were undoubtedly made. But lessons were also learnt. Once again I put on record the immense debt of gratitude we all owe those who served in Northern Ireland.

I also thank the tribunal for its work and all those who displayed great courage in giving evidence. I would also like to acknowledge the grief of the families of those killed. They have pursued their long campaign over 38 years with great patience. Nothing can bring back those who were killed, but I hope, as one relative has put it, the truth coming out can set people free.

John Major said that he was open to a new inquiry. Tony Blair then set it up. This was accepted by the then Leader of the Opposition. Of course, none of us anticipated that the Saville inquiry would last 12 years or cost £200 million. Our views on that are well documented. It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness, but let me reassure the House that there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past.

But today is not about the controversies surrounding the process: it is about the substance, about what this report tells us. Everyone should have the chance to examine the complete findings, and that is why the report is being published in full. Running to more than 5,000 pages, it is being published in 10 volumes. Naturally, it will take all of us some time to digest the report’s full findings and understand all the implications. The House will have the opportunity for a full day’s debate this autumn, and in the mean time, I have asked my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and Defence to report back to me on all the issues that arise from it.

This report and the inquiry itself demonstrate how a state should hold itself to account, and how we are determined at all times, no matter how difficult, to judge ourselves against the highest standards. Openness and frankness about the past, however painful, do not make us weaker—they make us stronger. That is one of the things that differentiates us from terrorists. We should never forget that over 3,500 people—people from every community—lost their lives in Northern Ireland, the overwhelming majority killed by terrorists.

There were many terrible atrocities. Politically motivated violence was never justified, whichever side it came from. And it can never be justified by those criminal gangs that today want to drag Northern Ireland back to its bitter and bloody past. No Government I lead will ever put those who fight to defend democracy on an equal footing with those who continue to seek to destroy it.

But neither will we hide from the truth that confronts us today. In the words of Lord Saville:

‘What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland’.

These are words we cannot and must not ignore.

But what I hope this report can also do is to mark the moment when we come together in this House and in the communities we represent: come together to acknowledge our shared history, even where it divides us; and come together to close this painful chapter on Northern Ireland’s troubled past. That is not to say that we must ever forget or dismiss that past, but we must also move on. Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years, and all of us in Westminster and Stormont must continue that work of change, coming together with all the people of Northern Ireland to build a stable, peaceful, prosperous and shared future.

It is with that determination that I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the tone of the Leader of the Opposition was statesmanlike and entirely appropriate to the Statement I repeated a moment ago. The conclusions of the report truly are shocking. As the Prime Minister’s Statement says, the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear—the events of Bloody Sunday were unjustified and unjustifiable.

The report speaks for itself. The conclusions made painful reading for those—and I include all noble Lords in this—who want to measure the actions of the state and our Armed Forces by the highest standards. It is a long report, but there is an admirably written list of conclusions which I hope is now available in the Printed Paper Office.

The noble Baroness asked whether I thought that the Saville inquiry was necessary. Indeed we do; it was most necessary. It was entirely right and appropriate and, as the noble Baroness will remember, we supported it at the time it was set up.

History will no doubt take its own view of what happened to the Widgery report. It was of course written in some haste very shortly after the event and during a period of some parliamentary distress at what had happened. That does not necessarily excuse it, but the report which we have today is definitive and certainly draws a line under our knowledge of what occurred on that day.

I am readily happy to accept that there could be a debate on this subject and its aftermath, perhaps after a few months when noble Lords have had an opportunity to read the report. If the Opposition were to make such a request, I am sure that it would be met most positively by my noble friend the Chief Whip.

Specifically, the noble Baroness asked about the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland, who have been invited by the Prime Minister to revert to him on their view as to what the next steps should be. The decision process will be influenced largely by reading about what happened. I think that the noble Baroness was asking indirectly what would happen to the soldiers who have been identified in the report. Everyone knows that Ministers do not control prosecutions, and they certainly will not determine the outcome on this matter. The issue of prosecutions is solely for the Public Prosecution Service acting independently. I am informed by the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland that the Director of Public Prosecutions, together with the Chief Constable, will consider the report and determine whether any criminal investigation is required.

That is the process that should now take place. I know that all who are involved, whether it is prosecuting authorities, former members of the Armed Forces or the families affected, will take trouble to read and look carefully at the findings of the report.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House is to be thanked for repeating this grave Statement. It makes this a solemn day in your Lordships’ House and in my own part of the United Kingdom, not only because it recalls to our minds the terrible events of Bloody Sunday but also because it was a watershed event in the history of the Troubles. As my noble friend repeated in the Statement, so many people lost their lives in 1972, which was the worst year, and in the years following. It reminds us of all those who lost their lives or who were injured and grief-stricken by the events which followed that terrible time.

My noble friend referred to the length and detail of the report—it is 5,000 pages long. There is much reading to be done, so I am gratified by his indication that, after some time to read and study the report, there will be the opportunity for us to debate the matter in your Lordships’ House in a properly reflective frame of mind and at an appropriate time.

However, is my noble friend aware that the most important part of the Statement today is not just the reflection on the findings of the report in general terms or even the fact of the report? No less important is the fact that it clearly exonerates as innocent those people who were injured and killed on the day, for a pall has hung over them and their families during those many years. However, most important of all is the fact that the British Government have given a clear, fulsome and unequivocal apology to all the communities involved. That is perhaps one of the most important potential contributions to the healing which we all now hope will begin to be seen in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My noble friend is right to talk about the healing process. Of the many noble Lords who have been involved in the history of these troubles over many years, my noble friend is one who can claim to share a large part of that experience. My noble friend referred to the civilians who were affected. It is worth quoting from the report itself. The noble Lord, Lord Saville, says, in paragraph 3.70:

“None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description. None was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury. In no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire”.

I think that that answers my noble friend’s point on lifting any question of doubt in the minds of families who lost loved ones on that day, when there has been some potential stain. That today is completely removed. I entirely agree with what my noble friend said: the apology made by the Prime Minister on behalf of us all is unequivocal. We must all hope that it is part of the process that continues to heal the wounds in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

While I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement in this House, as someone who was on duty on 30 January 1972, I deeply regret the death of 13 people in Derry on that day. However, I cannot be as magnanimous or one-eyed as I feel that the Saville report has been—and, I am sorry to say, this Government have been in how they have received it. Before Bloody Sunday, 180 people died in Northern Ireland, victims of terrorism. The 13 deaths are regrettable, but no more regrettable than the other 167—the 94 per cent of those who died that year. In the year 1972, 490-odd people died. The deaths in Derry have been investigated at the cost of almost £200 million, when we all knew the answer and that a huge error had been made. Those 13 deaths represented 2.5 per cent of the deaths in 1972.

As someone who, as a soldier, ran the gauntlet of planned IRA assassination and personal attack, I say to noble Lords that it is very easy to be humble on an occasion such as this—but one has to remember the many people who were not rioting and who had not broken away from a peaceful parade to confront soldiers who themselves had never been trained for that sort of confrontation in an urban guerrilla warfare situation. That is the background against which I hope noble Lords and the Government will view this report overall. I hope that we will not dismiss those many deaths into which there has not been an inquiry costing £200 million.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord speaks from tremendous experience and knowledge, as he has shown today, and he is right to acknowledge the background to the events of Bloody Sunday. The report is clear that the circumstances of Northern Ireland and Derry in 1972 were tense and bordering on chaotic. It was the bloodiest year of the Troubles. However, we should not allow Bloody Sunday to define the 38 years of the military operation in Northern Ireland in which so many of our brave service men and women served, as well as noble and gallant Lords. We cannot doubt the courage and professionalism of the vast majority who worked to uphold democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that all noble Lords will want to associate themselves with my remark that our Armed Forces today continue to display great character in adversity.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

My Lords, the publication of the report is a sad, sad story, and how it has taken so much time is beyond my comprehension. I was the Attorney-General when it began, and it was never contemplated that it would take a fraction of this time. But the report’s findings of accountability are clear, and I welcome that. I wish to place on record the enormous time and energy that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, has put into the work of the report.

In view of the time that has elapsed and the number of amnesties that have been given, will Her Majesty’s Government invite the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland to give an early indication of whether it is now in the public interest to prosecute?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was involved at the time when the inquiry was set up. Although he did not quite say it, I would agree with him that today is perhaps not the time to look at how long it took or how much it cost rather than at the fact that it has at last reported, and in an unequivocal way.

I do not think it would be right for the Government to direct the prosecuting authorities. The prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland will have seen what has happened—they will no doubt have their own copy of the report—and they must make their own assessment. So much water has gone under the bridge over so much time that it would be far better now to let the prosecuting authorities come to their own judgment in their own time and make their views known, as I am sure the House will agree they are all capable of doing.

[Lord Trimble]

My Lords, the Leader of the House is right in saying that it is clear that on Bloody Sunday 14 innocent people were killed, that the killings were all individually wrong and that mistakes were made in the planning and conduct of the operation. As he also says, however, lessons were learnt, and we saw the fruits of those lessons over the years.

The noble Lord is also right to point to the context. As has been mentioned, there was a serious terrorist campaign already in existence well before Bloody Sunday. That campaign was launched within a mature democracy where there were plenty of opportunities for people to seek reform and change through peaceful and democratic methods, but those who were perpetrating the campaign—the Provisional IRA—knew that their objects could not be achieved by democratic methods. It would be a perversion of what happened on Bloody Sunday if those events were then used to try to justify the wholly unjustifiable campaign that the Provisional IRA launched in 1970.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, no one seeks to justify the campaign of paramilitaries, whatever side they came from, or indeed the deaths that have occurred over the past 40 years in Northern Ireland as a result of that campaign. We have moved a long way from that stage. A number of agreements have been struck, and we now have a great opportunity to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland, which I know my noble friend wholly supports.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I was a Minister in Northern Ireland when the report was initiated, and I have waited a long time for the results as we have seen them today. There cannot be many countries that could be quite so honest about wrongs that they had committed in the past, and I hope that that will be a signal to other countries as well when they look at what we have done.

It is important that at least one clear conclusion has come out: that the civilians who were shot were unarmed and in no way a threat to peace and law and order in Derry on that day. Above all, we need time to consider the report and I hope that we can resist the temptation to come to too many conclusions at this stage. Otherwise, we are doing an injustice to the work that has gone into the report and, indeed, to the many witnesses who have given evidence. However, I have three particular hopes on which I hope the Leader of the House will agree.

First, I hope that the families of those shot will find a sense of relief and closure after the many years of pain that they have suffered; if the report achieves that, it will have done a great deal. Secondly, I hope that everyone will acknowledge the enormous progress that has been made in Northern Ireland since 1972. It is a quite different place from what it was on that tragic day when those people were shot. Thirdly, I hope—and I trust that the noble Lord will agree—that the result of this will be that the peace process will be strengthened. That will be of benefit to all the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of Ireland.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. As a former Minister, he is right about what he said about the inquiry and right that we should not rush to early conclusions. This is an enormous report to read. Having said that, the document on the conclusions is unequivocal and I know that he will take the trouble to read it, as we all need time to read it and to think about its implications. But it must be right for all of us that this is part of strengthening the peace process. It will be up to individuals, the families, defenders of the Armed Forces and others to recognise what has happened, and we should look forwards, not backwards. As the noble Lord rightly says, the Northern Ireland of 1972 is entirely different from that of 2010, and none of us can wish to go back to that period.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, my noble friend the Leader is absolutely right that the Northern Ireland of today is very different from that of 1972, but since then terrorists from both sides of the divide have been released from prison and from long sentences there. Indeed, convictions have not been pressed as part of the peace process. People will find it very difficult to understand that the same threat of prosecution is not withdrawn from our troops for offences that, let us face it, may have been committed the best part of 40 years ago.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is a matter for the prosecuting authorities and not for politicians, but if any soldiers are accused of these crimes they will of course be supported by the Ministry of Defence, who will provide them with the legal advice that they need so that they can defend themselves properly. It is right that these decisions are made by the prosecuting authorities rather than by us.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords—

[Lord Morrow]

My Lords, the Saville inquiry, which has been published today, looked into 13 deaths—there were actually 14, because one died later. However, this House should take note that we are perhaps setting a hierarchy of victims here and be aware that in south Armagh, for instance, over 300 murders remain unsolved today. Should this House not be aware that the Saville report has the potential to set Northern Ireland back 30 years rather than take it forward? Is every death in Northern Ireland not important to this House? Why should there be a particular inquiry into 13 plus one deaths—that is, 14—when countless hundreds of deaths have not been resolved? There are many issues relating to that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, had at his disposal some £200 million to bring about this report, yet the historical inquiry team, which looks at all the issues in Northern Ireland over the past 35 years, has at its disposal some £30 million. Is there not an inequality here?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is no hierarchy of victims and no inequality whatever here. What happened was an extremely rare case of soldiers who killed by opening fire on a march when they had no belief that they were under threat. That is what sets it apart from everything else. It is why Bloody Sunday has cast such a long shadow down the ages. Every death is to be deeply regretted, wherever it occurred, but today we are dealing with the results of the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

The Government ought to be congratulated on making this courageous response to the Saville report. I thank the Leader of the House for the way that he has reacted to this very sad situation, which does not divide the House apart from a few figures. What has happened today is capable of opening a new chapter in the sorry history of Northern Ireland.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord said and hope that he is correct in his conclusion.

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the clear way in which he laid out for us the painful conclusions of the tribunal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville. I declare an interest since sometime in the last century I was a historical adviser to that tribunal.

There was one point in the noble Lord’s Statement that I would like to pick up on. He reminded us that our security forces lost 1,000 lives in Northern Ireland. That is around 28 to 30 per cent of the total amount of life lost. The security forces were responsible for about 10 per cent of the fatalities suffered. On the other hand, the Provisional IRA and its allies took slightly less than 60 per cent of all the lives that were lost and accounted for only 12 to 13 per cent of the total fatalities suffered. In other words, our security forces were much more likely to fall in the line of duty than those who had the advantage of surprise. This is my question: does the noble Lord concede that the Widgery report—much inferior as it undoubtedly is to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville—sent a signal to the Army about reckless firing on the day; that our Army understood and internalised that message; and that that helps to explain the professionalism and restraint shown by the British Army in Northern Ireland since Bloody Sunday?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I cannot possibly speculate as to the effects of the Widgery report on the British Army. The history of the past 38 years stands for itself. However, we are now where we are; we now have, fortunately, a Northern Ireland that is more peaceful today than it has been for many years, with a democratic, directly elected Government and the possibility of genuine unity across the communities, leading to that long-term peace, stability and prosperity that we should all want. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, and others who have spoken from the Cross Benches have great knowledge and experience of, and influence in, what happens in Northern Ireland. I know from what they have said today, and from speaking to them privately, that they want what all of us in this House want—for that peace in Northern Ireland to continue.

House of Lords: Post-legislative Scrutiny

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

To ask the Leader of the House whether he will support discussions between all sides of the House of Lords in establishing a formal structure for post-legislative scrutiny by the House.

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

My Lords, I am happy to participate in discussions on post-legislative scrutiny in this House. It is of course open to committees in both Houses to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of Acts of Parliament, either as part of a broader inquiry or on the basis of a specific post-legislative memorandum published by the Government. Noble Lords will no doubt have views on how this process has been working.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am grateful for that positive Answer. Does the Leader of the House agree that pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny are part of the same exercise, in that each informs the other in moving forward to improve legislation? Does he also agree that it is work to which this House could make a very particular and good contribution?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend has said about pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny. I have always been a supporter of post-legislative scrutiny, but I have discovered in recent days that there is a gap between desiring the idea and making it a reality. There are substantial issues involved in the practicalities of making post-legislative scrutiny work. I am delighted that there is a system of post-legislative memoranda being published by the Government, as a result of decisions taken by our predecessors some years ago. It remains to be seen how that works over the next few months.

[Lord Filkin]

Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be beneficial if this House at least initiated discussions with another place about whether a joint committee was beneficial, but that if it decided, for whatever reason, not to proceed with a joint committee we ourselves should start action on this, as we have been talking about it for 20 years now?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is no reason why any noble Lord should not make the case for post-legislative scrutiny on an Act of Parliament and put that forward to the Liaison Committee for discussion of whether an ad hoc committee should be set up.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

My Lords, would it not be better following this discussion to make it imperative that every bit of legislation that we pass is subject to post-legislative scrutiny? That would mean that people could not slide out from under but would be held to account. One of the awful allegations levelled against us is that we are not held to account, but this is one way in which we could be. Indeed, we could show the other place how to do it.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is the nub of a decision that was taken in March 2008 by the Leader of the House of Commons, committing the then Government to enable post-legislative scrutiny for all Acts of Parliament passed during and after the calendar year of 2005. Since then, six or seven of these memoranda have been published, although many are left in the pipeline. We wait to see what attitude the Select Committees in another place or, indeed, in your Lordships’ House will take to these memoranda.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, is it not particularly important that there should be post-legislative scrutiny in Parliament following this Session, for which the Government have promised—or threatened—a prodigious quantity of legislation, most of which, in the nature of the situation, will be pretty hastily cooked up in Whitehall and which Parliament will have only cursory opportunity to examine properly because of the scale of demands?

[Lord Strathclyde]

That is really rich coming from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. He supported a Government who, over the past 13 years, gave rise to an outpouring of legislation quite unlike anything that we have ever seen in our history. Constitutional changes were dreamt up on the back of an envelope and introduced to Parliament with minimal thought and discussion and with no pre-announcement.

[Viscount Montgomery of Alamein]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for polluting his bit of the Bench. [Laughter.]

Is the Leader of the House aware of what I think is a military tradition, whereby the top brass who devise strategy are supposed to live with its consequences in practice? Would it not be a good idea if we learnt something from the military and stopped the mad ministerial merry-go-round, whereby Ministers, who are progenitors of legislation in this place, rarely if ever have to face the music?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues in saying that we are very much in favour of stopping the ministerial merry-go-round in this House.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, pre-legislative scrutiny and post-legislative scrutiny were two of the issues that were raised in the excellent debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in February of this year. At the end of that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that early in the next Parliament a Leader’s Group should be established to look at various procedural issues. Will he tell us when such a group might be established?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is certainly my intention to have discussions with the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition and with the Convenor of the Cross Benches as to how we should progress this and whether, before doing so, we should perhaps have a more general debate on the working practices of the House.

[Viscount Montgomery of Alamein]

My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to consider introducing sunset clauses to all legislation as a means of reducing the volume of legislation from recent levels? If not, what about introducing the repeal of legislation to reduce some of the legislation that we have had?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is certainly our intention shortly to bring before Parliament a Bill that will repeal some of the highly authoritarian legislation that was passed under the previous Government. As far as sunset clauses are concerned, in many instances they are extremely desirable.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords—

Afghanistan

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with permission, I would like to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on Afghanistan. First, I am sure the whole House will want to join with me in paying tribute to Private Jonathan Monk from 2nd Battalion The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, and Lance -Corporal Andrew Breeze from 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment, who have died in Afghanistan. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families and friends. Their service and sacrifice for our country must never be forgotten.

This was my fifth visit to Afghanistan, but my first as Prime Minister. I held talks with President Karzai and visited our troops in Helmand. I want to set out for the House how this Government will approach our mission in Afghanistan and how that mission is progressing. But, first, let me stress the importance of such updates. The whole nation is touched by the heroism of this generation of our Armed Forces who are fighting to protect us in harsh conditions far from home. And I believe that the country, and this House, is entitled to the facts. That is why this Statement will be the start of a pattern. There will be regular updates to the House, with quarterly statements by the Foreign or Defence Secretary and we will on a monthly basis publish much more information on the progress we are making. This will include updates on the security situation, recruiting, training and retaining the Afghan security forces; on progress in appointing and supporting provincial and district governors; and on progress in terms of development work, including health and education.

Our main focus will be on the security situation. For example, in the six months to March 2010 the Afghan National Army grew by almost 20 per cent with over 17,000 joining the ranks. But, at present, the Afghan police are assessed to be ineffective or barely able to operate in six of the 13 key provinces in General McChrystal’s plan. Good news or bad, we want to take the country with us in what is this Government’s top foreign policy priority.

Let me address the first question people are asking: why are we in Afghanistan? I can answer in two words: national security. Our forces are in Afghanistan to prevent Afghan territory from again being used by al-Qaeda as a base from which to plan attacks on the UK and our allies. Of course the al-Qaeda training camps and the Taliban regime that protected them were removed from Afghanistan in the months after 9/11. But the presence of NATO forces prevents them from returning.

Afghanistan is, however, not yet strong enough to look after its own security. That is why we are there. Together, with the greater efforts of the Pakistanis to hunt down al-Qaeda in its own country, al-Qaeda is now under pressure on both sides of the border. Eighteen months ago, the then Prime Minister told this House that some three-quarters of the most serious terrorist plots against Britain had links to the border area. Today, I am advised that the threat from al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and Pakistan has reduced. But I am also advised that if it were not for the current presence of UK and international coalition forces, al-Qaeda would return to Afghanistan and the threat to the UK would rise.

The next question is: how long must we stay? The Afghan people do not want foreign forces on their soil any longer than necessary and the British people are rightly impatient for progress. Our forces will not remain in Afghanistan a day longer than is necessary and I want to bring them home the moment it is safe to do so. The key to success is training and equipping the Afghan security forces at every level to take on the task of securing their country, so that Afghans can chart their own way in the world without their country posing a threat to others and our forces can come home—the job done and their heads held high.

That is why we back the strategy developed by the ISAF Commander General McChrystal and endorsed by President Obama and NATO. That strategy involves protecting the civilian population from the insurgents, supporting more effective government at every level and building up the Afghan National Security Forces as rapidly as feasible. We want to transfer security responsibility for districts and provinces to Afghan control as soon as they are ready, but this should be based on the facts on the ground, not on pre-announced timetables.

The current year is the vital one. We are six months into an 18-month military surge and we must now redouble our efforts to drive progress. Central Helmand, along with Kandahar, has been the heartland of the Taliban. It is from here that they gave safe haven to the al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan. That is why the operation in central Helmand is crucial to the success of the whole mission.

Four years ago we went into Helmand with 3,000 troops. I do not think anyone now seriously argues that was sufficient. Today there are around 30,000 there; 8,000 British working alongside 20,000 US Marines. In total, we have more than 10,000 troops in the country as a whole. With the arrival of reinforcements and the continued growth of the Afghan security forces, we are now evening out the ISAF presence in the main populated areas in Helmand. This is a crucial point.

In the past, we have simply not had enough soldiers per population for an effective counter-insurgency campaign. Today, although the rebalancing is still work-in-progress, the situation is much improved.  The arrival of a US Marine expeditionary force, combined with additional contributions from other ISAF partners, including the UK, has given a huge boost to the resources available to ISAF in Helmand. For example, the Marines have arrived with some 80 aircraft and helicopters of their own, which are now available to support all ISAF forces in Helmand and it is clear that we have made real progress in central Helmand this year.

A degree of normal life has returned to places like Nad Ali, where the bazaar is open again and people are going about their daily business in an area that was, until recently, infested with insurgents. But the progress is not yet irreversible. Inevitably, there will be tough fighting as Afghan forces, with ISAF in support, hold the ground that we have taken and push the insurgents out of further towns and villages. But I can also assure the House that this Government will do everything in their power to make sure that we give our forces the protection and the state-of-the-art counter-IED capabilities that they need.

During my visit, I was able to announce a further £67 million to double the number of counter-IED teams to tackle the most serious threat facing our young men and women. So, with the improvements made in the past year, many of the acute shortages, which hampered us so severely in our initial deployment in Helmand, have been dealt with. But I do not pretend that every equipment shortage has been resolved. We will need to adapt constantly and to deal with problems as they arise.

I regard it as my most important duty as Prime Minister to make sure our forces have what they need to do what we ask of them, and that they are properly cared for and respected for the extraordinary work that they do. The whole country is incredibly proud of them and I believe we need to do more to recognise the remarkable men and women of our Armed Forces and to place them at the front and centre of our society.  That is why I announced a doubling of the operational allowance for service in Afghanistan, back dated to 6 May and that is why I believe it is right that we renew and reaffirm our commitment to the military covenant, that crucial contract between our country and those who risk their lives to ensure our security.

However, I do not pretend that we can succeed, either in Helmand or in Afghanistan as a whole, by military means alone. Insurgencies usually end with political settlements—not military victories—and that is why I have always said that we need a political surge to accompany the military one. We need better to align our development spending with our overall strategy and I have announced £200 million to be spent on vocational training, strengthening the police services and government institutions. And we need a political process to bring the insurgency to an end.

As a first step, this means getting individual Taliban fighters to put down their weapons, to renounce violence and to reintegrate into Afghan society. The successful peace Jirgah earlier this month should enable that process to move ahead swiftly. But it means more than that. For long-term political stability, everyone in Afghanistan, including those in the south, must feel that it is their government, their country and that they have a role to play. As I agreed with President Karzai, we must start working towards a wider reconciliation process, leading to a political settlement that works for all the peoples of Afghanistan.

We are seeing a good example of the dual approach of a political surge combined with a military surge to deliver greater security in the second city of Kandahar. Importantly, the process getting under way in Kandahar is largely Afghan-led. Alongside military operations by Afghan security forces together with international forces, it included, for example, a Shura of several hundred local elders conducted yesterday by the local governor, which President Karzai attended. And it includes a major drive by the Afghan Government, with our support, to improve public services and the rule of law.

We want to create a situation where the people of Kandahar look to their Government, not the Taliban or militia groups, to deliver security, justice and a better quality of life. From now on, what is happening around Kandahar and in Helmand will reflect a deeper understanding of the influence of the tribal structures in Afghanistan. In the past, we have simply not paid enough attention to this, and to the unintended consequences of some of our policies. I want, for example, for us to take a careful look at the contracting policy of ISAF to ensure that the money going into the local economy from the huge logistical contracts has a positive impact and does not help fund local militias or, even worse, the insurgents.

As I have stressed, this is the vital year for our mission in Afghanistan. We have the forces needed on the ground; we have our very best people, not just military, but leading on the diplomatic and development front as well. I do not pretend it will be easy. As the last few weeks have shown, I must warn the House that we must be ready for further casualties over the summer months as the so-called fighting season resumes and ISAF extends its activity. But I say to the House what I said to our young service men and women in the dust and heat of Helmand on Friday: they are fighting thousands of miles away to protect our national security here at home. There is no national interest more vital than that. Like their predecessors, they have the support and the gratitude of the whole nation.

When we have succeeded in enabling the Afghans to take control of their own security, our troops can begin to come home. But even after our troops have left Afghanistan, the relationship between Britain and Afghanistan must continue as a strong and close one. Likewise, we want to continue to build on our relationship with Pakistan. These long-term relationships, quite simply, are essential for our national security.

I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for what she has said and for the questions she has posed. There were quite a few and I do not pretend for one moment that I shall be able to answer all of them right now. She is only too aware of the difficulties in replying on behalf of the Prime Minister, who speaks in another place, while being asked questions here. However, I shall do my very best.

I also thank the noble Baroness for the broad statement of support for what the new Government are doing. In many instances we are following the footsteps of our predecessors. As a generality, it is important to our forces abroad that they feel there is combined and united political support. I do not take that, of course, as stopping the noble Baroness from asking her incisive questions; I would be amazed if she did not continue to do so.

On the question of continuing the strategy, it has not changed fundamentally; we have very much the same interests in mind. However, there are different priorities, particularly in trying to press forward more political change. We are trying to promote a political surge at the same time as a military surge in order to win the military war and the people-and-minds war on the ground, and to encourage the Taliban to understand that the time for laying down its weapons has now come.

The noble Baroness will have seen in the newspapers this morning and over the weekend that the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence is due to retire. That was envisaged a while ago and there is nothing extraordinary in it. It is true that Sir Jock Stirrup is leaving early. However, I am informed that he will play a full role in the Strategic Defence Review and that that role will be important and significant in it coming to its conclusions.

The noble Baroness asked whether we would continue to support the families. I can confirm that we shall do so. That is why we have also announced that we should look again at how the R&R rules work in terms of travel time for soldiers returning to this country, as well as looking at the review of the military covenant, putting at the heart of that covenant the welfare of our military.

I cannot confirm that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has met the formidable women of the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force families federations, but I am sure that their interests are very much uppermost in his mind and those of the Secretary of State for Defence and his ministerial team.

The increase in funding of £200 million that we have announced is substantial. I can confirm that it is new money; it is not at the expense of existing programmes. Of course, I cannot say that in the future there may not be some reordering of it, but it is new money, to be spent during the next few years on trying, as I have explained, to unfold the strategic objective of helping the restoration of a civil society within the nation of Afghanistan.

As the noble Baroness correctly noted, the relationship with Pakistan is vital. It is extremely well understood. The sacrifice that the armed forces of Pakistan have made these past few years is equally recognised and understood, as are the close links that exist between this country and Pakistan. I am glad to say that, in general, the relationship between us and Pakistan is extremely good, and the amount of money which is spent by various agencies from the United Kingdom to Pakistan will be continued.

I am unable to tell the noble Baroness when the Strategic Defence Review will report. We are in the very early days of working out exactly how it will take place, but as soon as I have more information on it, I shall let her know.

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, I thank the Leader for repeating this constructive Statement. I add on behalf of the Cross Benches to the tributes already paid to those who have died in the line of duty.

It has been persuasively argued by long-term Afghan experts that the war against the Taliban is unwinnable for many reasons, some of which have been listed by the noble Lord. One of them is that the training camps supplying fresh batches of suicide killers for export are now based largely in the tribal areas of Pakistan, which are on the whole outside the reach of the Pakistan authorities. The link between the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is almost negligible now. Nor is the Taliban centrally involved in exporting terrorism; it is concerned much more with domestic control. It would seem that the justification for the surge looks increasingly thin. Does the Minister therefore agree that a different, perhaps more limited, strategy is called for? I suggest, for example, as have others, that a strategy which focuses on protecting the main cities, together with maintaining a highly trained, mobile force to take out any remaining training camps, is possible, desirable and therefore to be recommended.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers, makes some important and valid points, but it is the view of the Government that the key area for us to spend time and money on is the reintegration and reconciliation process of dealing with Taliban leaders. The noble Baroness rightly said that it is an unwinnable war if the only means at our disposal are military. It is not a war that can be won simply with guns and arms; it needs to be part of an overarching political process. That is why we are very glad that the peace Jirgah that took place early in June was a success. It was part of what we believe to be the inclusive political settlement, which is so necessary in restoring the peace and security in which prosperity can increase. We are trying to support the emergence of a strong and stable Afghanistan state. There will be parliamentary elections in September, all part of the process of creating that strong and stable state, and a great deal of work is ongoing to ensure that those elections are a success. The Prime Minister himself will see President Obama in July, when no doubt this will be uppermost on the agenda.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I share the views expressed on both sides of the House about the soldiers who have died recently in Afghanistan. Can the noble Lord say what is happening immediately to enable the Afghans to become a more effective fighting force? What programme is contemplated to give that aim practical effect?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, a key plank of the role of British forces is to help and encourage the Afghan national security forces themselves to become better able to provide the security that is required. There are currently around 120,000 Afghan national army personnel and 105,000 Afghan national police personnel. It was agreed at the London conference a few months ago to set targets for the ANSF growth by the end of 2011 of 171,000 for the ANA and 134,000 for the ANP. That means that there is a huge role not just for British forces but for our NATO allies and partners in helping, training and encouraging Afghan national security forces to take more of the burden. It is our wish that, as they do so, we will be able to withdraw.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I welcome this Statement from the Prime Minister repeated in this House. The Prime Minister is right when he talks of the need to accelerate the process which will lead to the eventual withdrawal of Britain’s 10,000 deployment. Can the noble Lord indicate whether there is a timescale for the withdrawal? That would put an urgency on the Karzai Government to reach some sort of decisions on the basis of which they can take fuller control rather than depending on British soldiers to maintain the situation in Afghanistan. Is there any further information about the recent revelation of the news about the ISI in Pakistan collaborating with the Taliban in Afghanistan on the basis of which the insurgency seems to be gathering quite a lot of pace?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dholakia asked about timetables for withdrawals. The view that I have always held on these matters, which is shared by the Government, is that rather than giving artificial dates we should do what we can when we can. No British soldier wishes to stay one moment longer than needed and required in Afghanistan. The steps that we are taking and continue to take are those designed to ensure that that withdrawal can take place. We hope, as the current mission unfolds over the next two or three years, that a substantial change will take place.

I cannot comment on the question raised by my noble friend about the ISI collaboration in Pakistan, but if I have any further information I shall certainly let him know.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House touched briefly on the point raised by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in relation to Sir Jock Stirrup but he did not answer the specific question that my noble friend put. Will the noble Lord tell the House why it is thought necessary that the Chief of the Defence Staff be asked to leave his post at this juncture?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I think that the noble Baroness is trying to stir up trouble for the Government on this subject, but I really do not think that there is any. There are no particular reasons. I am sure that there is a series of different reasons for why this decision has been taken, but Sir Jock will be staying in post until November. That also allows me to answer the noble Baroness’s question that I did not answer before: that is around the same time as we hope the SDR will be published. Sir Jock will be playing a major part in that, and he would not be if there was any discomfort or unhappiness between the Government and him. I can confirm that the relationship is as good as it should be.

[Lord Boyce]

My Lords, I welcome the statement. I notice, however, that there is a lot of emphasis on the subject of our troops coming home, which is laudable in many senses but is in danger of perpetuating the uncertainty with which this whole operation has been run for the past four years. Can the House be reassured that the Government will give full and strong emphasis to this being a fully fledged campaign, something to which the noble Lord the Leader alluded in the answer before last?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords. I have said that no British soldier wishes to stay in theatre a minute longer than is required, but we have a job to do. We will stay there to complete the job that needs to be done, and today was an opportunity to lay out our general strategy and priorities. We will fund and support our troops on the ground and take steps to make sure that they are given the very best of equipment, political support and everything else that they require.

[Lord Patten]

My Lords, in warmly welcoming the statement made in another place by my right honourable friend, I wish to raise a question concerned not with great matters of security or strategy but rather with the emotional and spiritual problems that face our brave young women and young men who are serving in Afghanistan. Does my noble friend agree that they are greatly helped by the advice and counsel that they receive from chaplains of all sorts? I use that term generically, from Muslim via Jewish to Christian and back. Will he confirm that such spiritual and emotional support, which is so valuable to people on the front line, will continue to be available for just as long as our troops stay in Afghanistan?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords. My noble friend has made a good point and asked an important question about how we see the welfare of our troops, not only when they are in theatre but also when they return to this country. I can tell him that my honourable friend Dr Andrew Murrison has been asked to carry out a study into the health of those in the Armed Forces and veterans to see what more can be done to assess and meet their needs. I would be surprised if that did not also look at their spiritual needs, which are all-important.

We want to put our Armed Forces in the front and centre of our national life again. We are going to rewrite the military covenant and look after their families. There is a key role for civil society in working with people who work in our Armed Forces and those who are retiring. We are also going to look at how to improve accommodation for Armed Forces families and channel more funding into state schools in barracks towns. There is a substantial agenda but we have a great opportunity, with so many members of the Armed Forces in theatre at the moment, to get it right. It was correct for the Prime Minister to lay this out right at the beginning of our term.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the intention to do more for the military covenant. The Americans and President Obama have talked about withdrawal starting in 2011, and now we appear to be talking in the same terms. Can I take it that we and our American colleagues will be moving together on this, not separately?

As I am on my feet, I should like to say how important it is that the Government’s confidence in the Chief of Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, is loudly and clearly enunciated, particularly bearing in mind the avalanche of adverse criticism that has appeared in the media—in a most co-ordinated way, it would appear—following the statement by the Defence Secretary at the weekend.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, on that point I reiterate the full confidence that we have in the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, for the work that he has done—and, indeed, for the work that he is going to do over the next few months. As for a longer-term withdrawal, that will happen in discussion and by negotiation with our military allies in ISAF. However, I repeat: there is no intention to leave Afghanistan until the job that we have set out on has been done, and done effectively. That is, not least, because we feel that we are at a vital stage of the job that we are doing there and can see the creation of a strong and stable society in Afghanistan becoming a reality.

[Baroness Goudie]

My Lords, I welcome very much the Statement by the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister today, and the commitment to funds for the future of the Ministry of Defence. More importantly, however, there is also the commitment to the funds for development. That is extremely important for women and children in Afghanistan. We made a commitment at the London conference to assist women and children in education, not only in schools but at university. By a quota system, almost 50 per cent of the MPs in Afghanistan are women. Those women do not have access to the President or proper access to Ministers. As well as a commitment to education, we should also have a commitment to those women who are elected MPs; they should be able to meet together as a caucus and be assisted in that way, not just kept in their constituencies.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Baroness is quite right. Development goes hand in hand with the work of the military and, as the Statement laid out and as I have said again this afternoon, this is very much a partnership and it must, almost by definition, include qualitative improvements in education and health throughout Afghanistan, helping younger women and young men to meet their potential. Since the London conference, good progress has taken place on commitments made there on a number of important areas: on corruption; on development and governance; and on reconciliation and reintegration. I very much echo what the noble Baroness has said this afternoon. It is uppermost in our minds.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, the Leader of the House referred to the success of the Jirgah earlier this month. Can he say in particular whether greater acceptance was manifested at the Jirgah by the people of Afghanistan of the Karzai Government as representing their interests, and whether specific measures were taken—or have been indicated—on the corruption which has been undermining the acceptability of that regime?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it has long been well known that there are problems of corruption in Afghanistan, but a presidential decree has strengthened the high office of oversight and the refocusing of Afghan ministries on tackling corruption. I do not think that any of us would be complacent in saying that the problem faced in Afghanistan is very substantial. My noble friend mentioned the Jirgah; that is but part of a process, but it is an important part in gaining the confidence of people and thus the greatest possible acceptability of the Government to govern in Afghanistan. As I said, parliamentary elections will take place in September. That is a further step on the way. If those elections can, as I very much hope, take place well away from a background of political corruption, that will be another way of demonstrating support for the new Government through normal parliamentary means.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, given that we have little time on our side, may I ask my noble friend a personal question? His courtesy to your Lordships’ House is such that it is difficult to imagine that he could increase that courtesy but, when he is repeating a Statement made by the Prime Minister, will he contemplate rising to do so after the Prime Minister has sat down? Unless he does so, it is impossible for the Printed Paper Office to release the Statement to Back-Benchers. Alternatively, will he contemplate changing the rules of engagement of the Printed Paper Office?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my understanding has always been—this just goes to show how you can get things wrong—that the prime ministerial Statement is issued as the Prime Minister stands up, but perhaps that is not the case. I shall certainly make inquiries, as I think that it is helpful for noble Lords to have a copy of Statements. I hope that I can encourage my noble friend by saying that I will look into this and that, if any action is required, I shall see whether it can be taken.

Arrangement of Business

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it may be helpful for me to say a few words about the procedural Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. The Motion proposes that the Local Government Bill should be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to allow them to consider whether the Bill is hybrid. The Companion to the Standing Orders explains that:

“Hybrid bills are public bills which are considered to affect specific private or local interests, in a manner different from the private or local interests of other persons or bodies of the same class, thus attracting the provisions of the Standing Orders applicable to private business”.

The Bill, like every public Bill, was considered by the Public Bill Office before introduction. It took the view that the Bill was not prima facie hybrid. A letter from the Clerk of Public Bills explaining why that view was taken has been placed in the Library of the House. The Companion makes it clear, however, that it is open to any Member who considers that a public Bill may be hybrid to move that the Bill be referred to the Examiners. As with all matters of procedure, while the Clerks can advise the House, it is ultimately for the House to decide whether the Bill should be referred to the Examiners. I should perhaps make it clear that if the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is agreed to, the Second Reading will not take place today.

Local Government Bill [HL]

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Resign!

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, a few moments ago when I was making the procedural statement, I explained that if the Motion was carried we would not continue with Second Reading. Therefore, we will not continue with Second Reading.

However, because the business has now effectively closed down rather sooner than we had anticipated, the noble Lord, Lord Levene, who has the next business, is not in his place. Therefore, I suggest that we adjourn the House during pleasure until 4.30 pm until we can find the noble Lord.

Special Advisers

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sheldon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many special advisers have been selected who have been approved by the Prime Minister.

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

My Lords, a list of special adviser appointments will be published shortly and will be available in the Library of the House. In accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code, all special adviser appointments are approved by the Prime Minister.

[Lord Sheldon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response. Many parliamentary advisers who have been employed have had none of the background of civil servants, and in some cases the Government created special advisers whose role was superior to those in the Civil Service. Has this practice now come to an end?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I very much regret that I was not in a position to give the noble Lord a clearer answer in my first response because he put his Question down slightly before the Government were ready to answer it. However, we will do so very shortly. I can confirm that, under this Government, the hideous regime of special advisers telling permanent civil servants what to do will come to an end.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Since the watchword of the two parties in this coalition is “fairness” and the role of special advisers is essentially a political one—liaising with outside opinion and Members of Parliament—will the Government exercise fairness in their appointments of special advisers as between departments and as between Ministers in the different parties of the coalition?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords, and naturally that is subject to the coalition agreement. However, clear rules are set out in the Ministerial Code on the number of special advisers and who is entitled to them. That, of course, speaks for itself.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, perhaps we could have this issue clarified at the beginning of the term of this Government. If a special adviser to a coalition Cabinet Member breached the code, who would be responsible for disciplining that adviser? Would it be the Prime Minister?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, discipline is up to the Minister who appoints the special adviser. The Prime Minister agrees the appointment, but it is the Minister who appoints the adviser who is responsible for discipline.

[Lord Glenarthur]

My Lords, is my noble friend able to give the figure for the number of special advisers in early 1997 compared with those who were in position before the general election this year?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, in 1997 there were 38 special advisers, while in March this year there were 78. When we make our announcement, I think that the House will find that there are fewer than that under this Government.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, can the Leader of the House tell us whether any of the special advisers being appointed will be on salaries higher than that of the Prime Minister? As a comparator, perhaps he could also tell us how many of the special advisers who have been appointed will be earning salaries higher than that of a Lords Minister. What does that tell us about their relative importance in government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the figures will be made public when we publish the announcement shortly.

[Lord Ryder of Wensum]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain the main purpose of a special adviser to the Government?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, these advisers are the personal appointments of Cabinet Ministers. Their job is to help Cabinet Ministers to do their job even more effectively than they would otherwise have done if they had not had such an appointment.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I am not sure that the Leader of the House answered the question put by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours precisely. The question is really this: if any Minister, in relation to his or her activities in connection with a special adviser is seen to be in breach of the Ministerial Code, would it be the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister who would have to exercise disciplinary action against them?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, in the first instance it is up to the Minister who appointed the special adviser, but if there was a most serious breach of the code, I am sure that it would be for the Prime Minister to take a view.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, bearing in mind that it is readily accepted that no one should benefit from public service, will the Minister give an assurance that the incoming special advisers will receive less income as special advisers than they were receiving immediately prior to taking up office?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, as I said in answer to an earlier question, these figures will be made public when we make the announcement. I said also that we will draw to a close the regime whereby special advisers told civil servants what to do, and we will end that hideous rogues’ gallery where special advisers became even better known than their Ministers—for example, Alastair Campbell, Damian McBride, Charlie Whelan, Derek Draper. Their reign is now firmly over.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, I had the responsibility, under my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby, of constructing the original structure for special advisers’ salaries. Can my noble friend indicate whether the same logical rationale to the structure will be published on this occasion?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the depths of knowledge of my noble friend never cease to amaze me. I am amazed because I did not know it beforehand and so I am unable to give him a positive answer. However, when he sees what we publish, I think he will be very impressed.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the noble Lord cited the names of various special advisers, but I remind the House that this Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister to have been a special adviser and I am sure that he would agree that, on the whole, they do an excellent job. Does the Leader of the House agree that most Prime Ministers are elected with a firm commitment to reduce the number of special advisers but that, over time, the rhetoric seldom matches the reality? We will be watching the numbers. I am not a betting woman in many cases, but I would bet that those numbers will go in one direction—upwards.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the Leader of the Opposition is right—the Prime Minister has made a firm commitment about the number of special advisers appointed. It will be up to us all to make sure that his resolve is maintained.

Barnett Formula

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is plenty of time for both noble Lords to speak. Let us hear from the noble Lord from the Cross Benches.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, is it not the case that the whole economic and financial landscape has changed so fundamentally over the past 30 years that a rough and ready yardstick of calculation, as it was then, now becomes something utterly inequitable; and that if there is no radical change, parts of the United Kingdom, such as the land and nation of Wales, will suffer the perpetuation of this inequity? Is it therefore a matter not of waiting for events to happen but of radically tackling a massive injustice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Peston]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, this always works very well when we take it in turns. Could the noble Lord, Lord Peston, sit down?

[Lord Peston]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we cannot both stand up at the same time. I think that I have the Floor. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, should be given an opportunity to speak.

Government Spending

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there are 20 minutes for Back-Benchers to speak, so we have plenty of time. I invite the noble Lord to speak first, and then we will hear from one of my noble colleagues.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I think that is the protocol. I have two further questions for the Minister. First, is he aware that, as an annualised rate, the deficit—all this is premised on the huge increase in the deficit—was 2.5 per cent 18 months ago and is now 11.1 per cent? That has created a hole in the economic output against trend of about £50 million. Does he not find it totally incredible to say that that is the fault of public sector workers? Is it more likely to be the fault of the top 0.1 per cent of the population whose average wage is over £2 million? The benefit is going to those people, but the cost is because public expenditure has got to go up to pay for unemployment benefit and tax revenues will go down because of lower income tax and lower corporation tax.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. Your Lordships, I hope, will understand if I begin by saying that the noble Baroness is someone for whom I, like so many others in the House, have the utmost affection and respect. She was, and I know will continue to be, a tough political opponent. That is good, for every Government is much the better for robust scrutiny in your Lordships’ House. But she was, and is, far more than a gifted leader of her party. She was an outstanding Leader of this House; it is a great challenge, as well as a privilege, to have been asked to follow her.

I pay tribute particularly to the grace and patience and the unfailing charm and courtesy with which she discharged her duties as Leader under the most difficult circumstances. The whole House owes her a special debt of gratitude for her clarity and resilience in representing and defending its views and interests, and for the dexterity with which she steered us through testing and often-painful times for this House.

The way in which this House operates, by consent and agreement, is the way in which I hope it will always work. That system inevitably brings a Leader of the House and a Leader of the Opposition into the closest daily contact; a spirit of candour and trust is essential. I was not alone in this House in trusting the noble Baroness instinctively. She was always straight, always fair and always as good as her word. As the Leader of the House now, I can only hope to try to be the same, and I thank her most sincerely for all that she did.

I echo my noble friends in conveying our very best wishes to Black Rod, who has provided such splendid service to this House since taking up his post, and in recording our thanks to the Yeoman Usher for the professionalism with which he has stepped into the breach.

It is my happiest duty to join the noble Baroness in congratulating my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lady Falkner of Margravine on their superb speeches. They are the living embodiment of the coalition which now graces these government Benches. Having heard my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I really cannot imagine why it took my predecessors so long to invite him to propose the humble Address. The noble Earl was a Member of Your Lordships’ House well before my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine and I were born. He was in Government when I was a rather chubby little toddler—has anything changed?

Even now, when I hear him speak as ever with such wit and ease, it is hard not to feel still a little wet behind the ears. My noble friend carries four score years with striking grace. He is everyone’s image of what a noble Earl should be like, only better. They say that his views do not please everyone; I doubt that my noble friend worries too much about that. He has never been a dull conformist, but his speeches are always worth listening to very carefully. They sparkle with originality, good humour, independence of mind and—I hope he will not mind my saying so, for he tries hard to hide it—deep wisdom. My goodness, if all of us served Parliament and country for more than half a century with the same dedication, dignity and decency as my noble friend, what a House this would be.

My new noble friend Lady Falkner has been a Member of your Lordships’ House for only six years, but, having heard her again today, your Lordships will understand how she has carved out a highly respected role speaking, until recently, from the Liberal Democrat Benches on matters of justice. Indeed, it is said that even the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, sits in silence when she speaks. I am sure that, on that count alone, the whole House is in awe of her ability.

I am told that, among the noble Baroness’s many charitable activities, she has toured British universities on behalf of the Coexistence Trust. Its mission is to promote mutual understanding between Jewish and Muslim communities worldwide. I wonder whether she had considered conducting a parallel exercise for the benefit of the party groups now co-existing on the government Benches. In that, I wish her the very best of luck. Today, my noble friend Lady Falkner has made a profound and thoughtful speech, and I very much hope that we shall hear more of her in the months ahead.

As this Parliament assembles, we have a very different Government in place. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that it was unthinkable but, as in the 1890s, in 1916-22 and in the 1930s and 1940s, Liberals and Conservatives sit together in government. Who, as the cliché goes, would have predicted that?

When I spoke last year on this great occasion, I ventured to suggest that I might deliver my speech from a different place this year, and there was a good deal of friendly scoffing from the Liberal Democrat Benches over there. This year, I am relying on my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland’s so that today there will be a fair bit of friendly cheering from the Liberal Democrats sitting over here—I hope. When we moved across the House, they simply could not bear to see us go. I am delighted, of course, that we have been able to arrange a reunion here on the government Benches in a new political partnership to provide the stable and lasting Government that this country needs.

Now, a note of regret. I am sorry that coalition government means that your Lordships have been deprived of my noble friend Lord McNally’s customary speech on this occasion. But good news: come Thursday, he will address the House in his new role as Deputy Leader of the House and a Minister of the Crown. I welcome him and many other colleagues, new and old, here for a new Parliament on the government Benches today.

The national crisis that we face may not be as grave as some of those that our two parties confronted together in the past, but it is grave indeed. We face almost unparalleled challenges in the modern era, at home and abroad. Our nation is at war. Our national treasure at home is utterly exhausted. Our social fabric is torn. Our politics has never sunk so low in public esteem. Many, particularly older people, have come to feel that the good times were in the distant past. Cynicism, mistrust and bureaucracy have seemed our nation’s only growth industries. As more and more families have struggled to preserve the lives and the standards that they wish for, the state has grown bigger and bigger and ever more dominant, intrusive and desperately wasteful. If ever there was a time for new approaches, rooted in old values, it is now. That is what this coalition will offer.

I will not insult noble Lords by belittling the scale of the problems that we face or the compromises and sacrifices that will be needed to dig this country out of debt and despond, but it must and can and will be done. Our parties have joined with the utmost conviction to deliver the common programme that this country needs. This fresh undertaking of coalition will not fail from any fault of ours. Of course, our parties have differing perspectives, but our joint resolve is stronger for having discussed those differences frankly and come together with the common purpose set out in the gracious Speech: restoring freedom, fairness and responsibility.

My party and the Liberal Democrats have taken many notable stands together in this House over the past 13 years. We protected the right to trial by jury, limited the most draconian emergency powers to terrorist crimes, prevented the imposition of compulsory ID cards and stopped 90-day detention without trial—not a bad record for this House. So I am delighted that the new coalition will be reversing the erosion of the individual freedoms and liberties that this House has worked so hard to defend. We will abolish the ID card scheme, the National Identity Register and the ContactPoint database. We will protect trial by jury, introduce safeguards against misuse of antiterrorism legislation and restore rights to non-violent protest.

I can give the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition the answer to her question on Bills starting in the Lords. A number of Bills will begin their passage in this House, which will include, imminently, the local government Bill and the important academies Bill, which builds on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to which I am sure the party opposite will give a fair wind.

The business of this House has never been to stop legislation but to improve it, and I look forward to working together on the work of scrutiny and revision. Of course, the Salisbury Convention will apply. There is no difficulty there. [Laughter.] We shall recognise where it applies, and when we see it we shall use our common sense to make it so.

I am acutely conscious of the great honour bestowed upon me in being appointed Leader of your Lordships’ House. I can think of no higher privilege and will never forget my duty to the House as a whole. But I take office at a time of challenge and change, change that your Lordships cannot ignore. A new code of conduct comes into effect today. I can also announce that a new Commissioner for Standards, Mr Paul Kernaghan, former chief constable of Hampshire, will take up post shortly.

We must also deal swiftly with the issue of expenses. We have an opportunity to get this right. I want a system that will be transparent, easily understood and which provides no opportunity or temptation for evasion. We owe it to the reputation of the House to put that in place and, in consultation with your Lordships I will enable that to be done, once my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his committee have reported.

The powers and duties of the House will not change, but its shape cannot be fixed forever. We recognised that in 1958, 1968 and, indeed, in 1999. I know that, though there are some who bring forward Bills year after year to change this House, many of you will have heard with some disappointment words in the gracious Speech about reform. But if there is a demand for change, it must be addressed in a comprehensive way. Let me assure the House that proposals will be put before your Lordships at a formative stage and there will be plenty of opportunities ahead for the House to discuss this before we move forward.

I also believe that we should look afresh at our working practices. I do not think we should lose sight of the remarkable privileges that Peers already enjoy, such as the right, not given to Back-Bench Members in another place, to table amendments at three stages of a Bill, and to have each one heard and replied to. We should always keep our working practices up to date, and I shall discuss how best to do that with the Leader of the Opposition and the Convenor in the near future. Whatever we do, our aim should be to build on the strengths of this House. This Government will respect it as a central part of the legislative process. For my own part as your Leader, I will always endeavour to ensure that your Lordships’ voice is listened to, as well as recorded.

We have a long and busy Session ahead. Our country’s needs are great and its expectations of us high. I know that this great House will not fail to rise to the changing and evolving challenges before us. I support the Motion.

Debate adjourned until tomorrow.

Chairman of Committees

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of the House for this Session.

Motion agreed nemine dissentiente.