Adoption
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the statute law about adoption, and to make recommendations, and that the committee do report by 28 February 2013.
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider Her Majesty’s Government’s assistance and promotion of the export of products and services by small and medium-sized enterprises, and to make recommendations, and that the committee do report by 28 February 2013.
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the one-hour time limit shall apply to the Questions for Short Debate set down for Tuesday 29 May.
Standing Orders (Public Business)
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
Queen’s Speech
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to open the days of debate ahead on the humble Address. I spoke yesterday on a Motion to adjourn the House, and I said then that I would be speaking today to put some flesh on the bones of some of the constitutional announcements made in the gracious Speech.
We have agreed through the usual channels that for today and Monday the principal topic for debate will be constitutional affairs. I know that this is a subject which the House takes very seriously and is in many respects uniquely placed to comment on. I am pleased to see so many speakers signed up for this debate and I know that we will benefit from the expertise available in this Chamber.
We are an outward-looking and inclusive nation, and we adapt inevitably to the world changing around us. That is why the Prime Minister announced last year that we will reform the rules governing royal succession. With the agreement of 15 other Commonwealth realms of which Her Majesty is also head of state, we will bring forward proposals to ensure that a daughter will be treated the same as a son in the line of succession. Once we have agreed the way forward, we will bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows. The detail is of course still the subject of discussions, but agreement in principle to take forward these changes has already been secured at the very highest level, as the Prime Minister and other Commonwealth Heads of Government made clear in Perth last year.
The Government will also bring forward legislation to tackle electoral fraud, by introducing individual electoral registration requiring electors to register individually rather than by household. In doing so, individuals will have to provide information to verify their application. This will update our electoral registration system, making it easier and more convenient for people to register to vote. New methods of registration, such as online registration, will also be looked at and our aim is to tackle electoral fraud, increase the number of people registered to vote and improve the integrity of the register. By 2015, every individual’s entry on the register will have been verified.
I am of course aware that the most significant change to our constitutional arrangements which was announced in the gracious Speech, and perhaps that of most interest to many speakers today, is the proposal to change the composition of this House. I know from a most useful and meticulous debate last week that noble Lords are fully appraised of the contents of the draft House of Lords reform Bill and the Joint Committee’s report on that Bill, and indeed the alternative report on it. In summary, the draft Bill proposed to change the way in which people come to this House. Nearly all are currently recommended by leaders of political parties. The Bill would change this so that most Members of the House of Lords would be elected directly by the people. In doing this, the Bill would bring democratic legitimacy to the reformed House of Lords. For the first time, the people who obey the laws of this country would be able to elect the people in the second Chamber who helped make those laws. The second Chamber will have a democratic mandate with which to do its work.
Furthermore, the size and membership of the House of Lords would be substantially reduced, and elected Members would come from all regions and nations of the UK. The House of Lords would also, for the first time, be able to expel Members who have committed serious offences. We intend to bring this Bill forward now because we believe the time has come for Parliament to take a view on what has become a well rehearsed issue. All three major political parties agree that reform of your Lordships’ House is needed. We all recognise the importance of bringing increased democratic legitimacy into our second Chamber. Now is the time to start taking actual decisions on how to make it happen.
There is not a single person who has joined the House of Lords since 1997 who cannot have been wholly aware of the proposals for change. Indeed, change has rightly been a feature of this House during this transitional phase, as the membership of this House has continued to evolve. Nor have our customs and conventions been set in stone over that period. Indeed, over the course of the last Session alone we set many uncomfortable precedents. By September last year, the proportion of Bills sent to Grand Committee in a full-length Session had fallen to a 10-year low, prompting a vote on the commitment of the Welfare Reform Bill—which, incidentally, turned out to be a resounding success. We witnessed the longest Committee stage of a Bill since the early 1970s and more Bills taking longer than eight days in Committee than did so over the entirety of the last Parliament.
We saw Third Readings of Bills take ever longer, with many important votes and amendments unnecessarily postponed until later stages or amendments being brought back time and again that had already been properly disposed of. We broke with convention by pressing amendments rejected by another place on the grounds of financial privilege. Even the Leader of the Opposition absurdly voted against the advice that she had previously given as Leader of the House. This suggests that, irrespective of the progress of proposals for reform, the House is already more assertive, more willing to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons and, on occasion, prepared to test the conventions around reasonable time.
The future of this House has been hanging in the balance ever since we embarked on the first phase of reform that the Labour Party started in 1998. It is now time to move on to the second phase. It seems so long since 1999, when the Labour Party said that the transitionary House would exist for only a very short period. That party promised us early reform, and in government it accepted by-elections to replace dead hereditary Peers because stage two would come along so soon. I very much hope that noble Lords opposite who are due to speak from the Front Bench will be able to explain Labour’s failure over the past 12 years, and why it never delivered the promised democratic legitimacy that Tony Blair yearned for in 1997—yet another failure.
Lord Cormack
I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Is he aware that when Tony Blair made his last appearance before the Liaison Committee in another place, he made it abundantly plain that he did not think that this place should be subject to direct elections?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am aware of that. I am particularly impressed that those questions were aimed at those in the Labour Party and my noble friend is now answering questions posed to them. I want the Labour Party to tell us whether it agrees with Tony Blair last year or in the late 1990s. That is the question we need to get to the bottom of.
The reform Bill that we introduce in this Session will take account of the work done so far. It will build on the commissions, White Papers and cross-party working groups, most of which were chaired by senior members of the Labour Party in government pleading with us to create a consensus so that they could get on with stage two of reform. When we come forward with our Bill, it will take account of the Joint Committee’s report and conclusions on the draft Bill, which will no doubt leave their mark on our proposals. I say, with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in his place, that we are very pleased that the Joint Committee has broadly confirmed its support for a mainly elected House of Lords and are reassured that the Government and the Joint Committee agree on so many of its key elements.
I do not underestimate what a task it will be to resolve those issues that remain outstanding, nor to come forward with a Bill that will gain support across the parties in both Houses. We wish to proceed by consensus, and we recognise that that will be achieved only by bringing the Front Benches of all three parties with us—and, I hope, their Back Benches too. We do not expect simply to stumble upon a consensus; we have to build it. So the Labour Party will have to make up its mind what kind of second Chamber it is supporting, and will have to choose whether it is going to be part of that consensus.
Lord Elton
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that he is now withdrawing the definition of consensus that he gave before Prorogation of being whatever the House of Commons would give a majority to?
Lord Strathclyde
No, my Lords. However, I think that my explanation of a consensus was misunderstood. Any student of this subject, as I have been over the past 15 years, will know that there is no consensus in the House of Commons without that consensus being made from all three main parties. That was the point. Unless there is a majority in the House of Commons, the Bill will not get passed, and unless it is supported right across the main parties, there will not be that majority in the House of Commons.
Lord Crickhowell
My Lords, unless I misheard him, my noble friend appears to have produced a new definition of consensus: that it is what is agreed by the Front Benches in both Houses.
Lord Strathclyde
No, my Lords. It would be very nice to have a consensus between the three Front Benches. I think that that is a condition of being able to create a consensus in both Houses of Parliament.
A moment ago, I said something extremely important that the Labour Party and the House need fully to understand. Consensus in Parliament will be impossible without the support of the Labour Party. The Government’s latest brave and sensible proposal is built on the White Paper by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the White Paper by Mr Jack Straw when he was Lord Chancellor and the consensus created by my noble friend Lord Wakeham when he chaired the royal commission 10 or 11 years ago. If this Bill founders now, having had all this work done on it, then I am utterly convinced that it will be entirely due to Labour’s conniving and collective spinelessness. The spines are already quivering.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I am interested in what the noble Lord said about consensus and take account, particularly, of what the Joint Committee recommended. One of its recommendations—and this concerns consensus—was that there should be a referendum of the people about this. Will the Bill that will be presented to Parliament contain a clause insisting on a referendum before any reform for an elected House?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we have not taken a final view on the Joint Committee’s report and proposals. We are working on that now. I do not really see the case for a referendum any more than the Labour Party did in 1999 or when it kicked out the Law Lords or for most of the other constitutional changes that it made, but more of that in a moment.
Lord Grocott
The Leader seems to be making great play with his accusation that the Labour Party is not united on this issue and that we are therefore responsible should the Bill fail. Can I take from that that he is confident in his defence of his own position that there is complete unity on the Conservative Benches?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord forgets that he and I have been debating this issue for very many years, I rather longer than him, and my position has been utterly simple and consistent, unlike the Labour Party’s. I have never believed that there was a consensus within the Conservative Party. There has not been one in the past 120 years, and there is not going to be one over the course of the next 10 weeks. That is precisely the point. What I want the Labour Party to do in a few moments is to tell us on what basis it will support this reform. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will do so.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend has just said that there has never been consensus in the Conservative Party and that there never will be. Why on earth, then, did we fight the election on a manifesto commitment to build consensus on reform of this place?
Lord Strathclyde
That is the point: the commitment was to build consensus across the parties to see whether Parliament would agree to reform. That is precisely the point and I thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth for saying that. The commitment was never to create consensus within the Conservative Party. Why on earth would I have bothered to try to do that?
Lord Anderson of Swansea
However, there was consensus—on any of the noble Lord’s definitions—in relation to the Steel Bill. When he says that he will give that Bill a fair wind, what does he mean? Does he mean the original Steel Bill or the one that was heavily truncated?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the only Bill emanating from my noble friend Lord Steel that has passed through this House was the one that languished in another place at the end of the previous Session of Parliament. I think it extremely likely that the Government’s proposals will include aspects of my noble friend’s Bill, and they should be discussed in that context.
I move on to the next part of this speech in support of the gracious Speech. I hope that, in a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will speak with his usual clarity. Out of nowhere, Labour now says that it will support a Lords reform package provided the Cross-Benchers are removed. I wonder what the Cross-Benchers did to deserve this. There has been no mention of it over the past 10 years, but suddenly the Cross-Benchers must be flung out of this House before the Labour Party will support the consensus. I say to the Cross-Benchers that they need to pick their friends rather more carefully.
Secondly, there is the codification of powers so that the newly elected House will have less power than the existing appointed House. This is a new sort of rich absurdity that has crept into this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, shakes his head; is he saying that he does not want codification of powers? The other day he seemed very keen on it. He will be able to reply in a moment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
It is a great pleasure to intervene in the noble Lord’s remarkable speech this morning. The issue of powers, which has now been fully explored by the Select Committee and the alternative report, is very clear. With two elected Houses, there is a great danger of gridlock and a fight for legitimacy. That is why some codification is necessary. The issue of an elected House having fewer powers than this House is a red herring because this House does not use all its powers since it is not elected.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord has responded to my invitation to speak with clarity. Labour will support only a 100% elected House with a codification of powers that means that the elected House will have less power than the existing one. The noble Lord can quiver and quibble—he and his noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton can do all those things—but in the end they need to be clear on all this. I wonder where all this nonsense came from. Throughout the past 10 years, no Joint Committee, White Paper or any aspect of this has ever mentioned that Labour was in favour of the codification of powers.
Lord Rooker
I will tell the Leader where it has come from. We want to make the primacy of the elected House a reality. You cannot make the primacy of the Commons a reality unless you do something about codification of the powers here. The refusal to take that seriously, as was shown by Clause 2 of the draft Bill, shows that the Government still have not got it.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was a distinguished Minister with the previous Administration. At no time did he make those points in Parliament or within his Government, in all the Joint Committees that met or the White Papers that were published. They did not start quibbling about the primacy of the House of Commons then. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, in his Joint Committee has made an entirely sensible, reasonable and well argued case about the defects of Clause 2, and we will take those up. However, the Labour Front Bench in this House and, I suspect, in another place, has decided that it does not want to create a consensus, and that is why it has come up with these conditions.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
I wonder whether the noble Lord has forgotten the establishment of the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, to look precisely at the powers, and so on, of this House before further action was taken on the composition of the Lords.
Lord Strathclyde
I am well aware of that, but it is pretty rum that the report from the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, laid out a whole bunch of conventions that in the past two years the Labour Party, which supported it, has been very happily breaking.
What else have we got? Suddenly, in 2010, the Labour Party says that there needs to be a referendum. There is no explanation of what kind of referendum. I see that the Leader of the Opposition is now talking to her noble friend Lord Hunt; I hope that they are going to explain what they mean.
Let me bring this to a conclusion. The Labour Party’s position is that there should be no Cross-Benchers but codification to reduce the powers and a referendum before it wishes to create a consensus. Will the noble Lord and his noble and learned friend confirm that these are the Labour Party’s conditions and that it will block any consensus without them? The House will expect the noble Lord to give an answer.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Leader of the House has not yet mentioned another little time bomb that is ticking away—a committee that has been set up under the chairmanship of Bill McKay to look at how votes are carried out in the House of Commons and to exclude Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish Members from voting on matters that are purely English, or designated as such. That is an important matter that relates to the reform of the House of Lords, but no mention has been made of it or how it fits in. Has the Leader of the House thought of that? Have the Government thought about it, and what are they going to do about it?
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, refers to the West Lothian question. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said that it was a question that was better not asked. In the House of Commons—and it is entirely a matter for them—they are looking at it to see what solutions they can bring. Those are solutions for another place; they are not for us.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
The noble Lord is entertaining the House with a fascinating speech, but could he say whether, were the other place to change its voting on the basis of country of origin of the Member, he would expect this House to continue in the current way? Secondly, I have listened very carefully to many debates. It surprises me that the noble Lord the Leader of the House does not seem to recognise that the position on our Benches and around the House has always been a recognition of the primacy of the House of Commons. He maligns Members of the House by implying that the primacy of the House of Commons is a concern only on our Benches. Around the House there is a fear of a constitutional gridlock, not least because many members of the public and the media keep referring to this House as a legislature. It is not—it is a reforming Chamber.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I have no problem with the primacy of the House of Commons as it stands and I am very keen to preserve it. What I am trying to find out is what on earth the Labour Party thinks.
Lord Strathclyde
No, I am not giving way to the noble Lord again; let me finish. The noble Lord will make a speech in a few minutes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Leader did not answer my question, which is a very important one. Let us suppose that the West Lothian question commission, which is chaired by Bill McKay, recommends that Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not vote on purely English matters in the Commons, and then we have an elected House of Lords. What would be the position of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members in the newly elected Senate?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, perhaps if the Labour Party had considered these issues in 1997, 1998 and 1999, we would not have to deal with them now. Back to Lords reform; we have been debating this issue for 15 years—
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I am most grateful to the Leader for giving way. However, on reflection, does he not consider it a little wrong that the whole burden of his speech, to which I have listened with great attention, is that he admits, with his characteristic honesty, that there is no consensus or agreement on the Conservative Benches either in this place or in the other place, and that therefore it is the duty of the Labour Party—the Opposition—to rescue the Government from their folly in putting forward this proposal at this time?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not think that it was particularly candid of me to express a view that there was not much unity on this proposal in the Conservative Party in this House, or, indeed, in the Labour Party in this House. Anyone who has read the debates that we have had over the past 10 or 12 years would have to be completely bonkers not to recognise that. However, that is not so true in the House of Commons. The Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons have largely unified around all this. However, the point that my noble friend Lord Lawson makes is that we would not be in this position if, over the past 10 years, the Labour Party had not sought to reform this Chamber and make it more democratic. That debate must now come to an end. We cannot keep on talking about this. We have had enough of Joint Committees looking at draft Bills and of endless White Papers and royal commissions. We now need to move forward and make a decision. That is what this Government are going to do over the next few months.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House sits down, may I ask him a question not about who did what when, or whose fault this is, but about the Joint Committee report? A little earlier he said that the Joint Committee supported a mainly elected House of Lords. However, he omitted to say—I will quote from what the Joint Committee actually said—that it agreed that the reformed second Chamber of legislature,
“should have an electoral mandate, provided it has commensurate powers”.
The noble Lord might acknowledge that this is not just about an elected second Chamber. The phrase,
“provided it has commensurate powers”,
is a very important one. I hope he will acknowledge that that is what the Joint Committee said, as opposed to what he omitted to say.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I very much look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s speech, when she will be able to explain exactly what she means, or what she thinks the Joint Committee meant, by “commensurate powers”.
Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
To move, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 28 March, that in the event of a Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill being read a first time in the same form as it stood at the end of the last session of Parliament, Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Bill to be read a second time pro forma.
Chairman of Committees
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of the House for this Session.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment to a role that I am confident he will fulfil extremely ably. As I move the Motion, I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, who today retires from that important office. He was a dedicated Chairman of Committees, and throughout his years in office displayed time and again his good judgment and good humour in endless committees and here at the Dispatch Box.
His roles were many and varied, but he fulfilled all of them with great skill—from his duties on the Woolsack to overseeing major works, most recently the new cast-iron roofs that any noble Lord who was here over Easter will know are desperately needed, answering Oral Questions and resisting calls for a House of Lords cat to catch House of Lords mice. Noble Lords from other Benches will say more about the work that he so ably oversaw, but perhaps I may say a few words about the success of the Millbank House project. It is exceptional these days for building works to finish on time and within budget, but this project managed both, allowing Members to move in as planned after the Summer Recess. I can personally testify to the amount of time that the noble Lord put into liaising with the usual channels and chairing meetings of the accommodation steering group.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was chairman in challenging times for the House, and in particular for the Committee for Privileges. He chaired that committee with great sensitivity and wisdom, and the more robust complaints system that we developed was crucial in upholding the reputation of the House and its work in difficult times. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing its appreciation of the noble Lord for his work, and in expressing its warmest and best wishes for his future as he returns to the Back Benches.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I cannot say that I agree with every single word that the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition has said this afternoon. However, it is a great pleasure to support her in moving her Motion. She moved it in a spirit of unity and can be assured of creating a warm consensus across all sides of the House this afternoon. I hope this is not the last time this Session that we have such an outbreak of consensus on a Motion to adjourn the House.
The noble Baroness is my predecessor as Leader of the House. It is rare that both of us leading from the Dispatch Box should have a similar experience as Leaders of this House. She is well remembered as having fulfilled that role with dignity and energy. However, she knows as well as I do that this House works only because the Opposition co-operate with the Government to deliver the business, although, looking back at an historically long Session—probably rather too long—we sometimes came perilously close to stretching that co-operation almost to breaking point. We managed to step back from the brink, and it is a testament to her leadership of the Benches opposite and the service she has given to the House as a whole that the affection and respect in which she is held by noble Lords around the House have remained constant.
On behalf of all your Lordships, I thank and congratulate Black Rod, his staff and the doorkeepers for the magnificent job which they did today. As I came into the House this morning and saw the tightly squeezed rows of Peers before me, I could not help but think that the doorkeepers could show sardine packers a trick or two.
We have today been reminded anew of the very special role played by monarchy in our society and democracy, as Her Majesty the Queen opened a new Session of her Parliament in her Diamond Jubilee year. We remain deeply indebted to her for all that she does for Parliament and the nation and look forward to her Jubilee celebrations, which will take place in only a few weeks’ time. Coupled with the Olympics and the Paralympic Games, they will make for a summer of celebration, whatever the weather.
I join the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to my noble friends Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lady Jolly for moving and seconding the Motion for an humble Address. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Cope chose to accept the invitation to propose the humble Address. He is possessed of the shrewdness that comes from vast experience. As his lucid intervention today served to remind us, the House does not hear enough from Peers such as him. In opposition, he was a remarkable and successful Chief Whip and his parliamentary record speaks for itself, but what is less well known is his long-term championing of small firms and their role in providing growth and jobs in this country. All those sentiments find ready echoes in the gracious Speech.
As my noble friend Lady Jolly pointed out, my noble friend Lord Cope is also an expert in vintage cars and is the proud owner of an ancient Bentley. Like her, I did not know that it was a Derby Bentley but no matter, because upon retirement from the Front Bench we presented him with an extra large, bumper tin of high-quality automotive wax polish. I hope that the whole House agrees that seeing how fit and energetic my noble friend is, he has clearly been putting his chamois leather to good use at weekends.
My noble friend Lady Jolly is fresh blood by comparison, having joined the House in 2010, but she was already battle-hardened for anything that this House could throw at her. She is a legend among Liberal Democrats in the south-west of England, and many Liberal Democrat MPs owe their seats to her hard work. We have just heard that in a previous life she ran election campaigns for none other than my noble friend Lord Tyler. If she managed to get him elected, just imagine what she could do for the rest of us. My noble friend may find that her popularity soars as Peers, keen to be elected, listen to her pearls of wisdom. In her short spell on these Benches, she has lost no time in making an impressive contribution to the legislative work of this House and to the effective operation of the coalition. I congratulate her on her eloquent speech today.
It was my noble friend Lord Ferrers who, two years ago and on this same occasion, reminded us that the whole point of a coalition is that no one gets their way. I said then that my noble friend is far wiser than he likes to let on and I fear that that particular slip will have done incalculable damage to his reputation. I am sure that the whole House was thrilled to see him back in his place in the House today and I hope that he will be back again soon.
In this House we have made the coalition work effectively, and I pay special tribute to my noble friend Lord McNally, the Deputy Leader. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland, who has spent the past two years at the coal-face of the coalition. We are greatly indebted to him. I join my noble friend Lady Jolly in warmly welcoming his successor, my noble friend Lord Newby, to the Front Bench as Deputy Chief Whip and Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard.
On one level it is no surprise that our two parties have taken to coalition more quickly and more naturally than one might have expected. After all, we had a head start. No one party has a majority in this House, so we all came into government with considerable experience of what it is like to have to build a coalition for each and every vote while in opposition. However, I have noticed that on occasion some of my new colleagues would still like to create alliances that lead to the defeat of, rather than support for, the Government.
I think it is well understood that the business of this House has never been to throw out legislation but to improve it. Over the course of the past Session, the Government were forced to think again on a wide range of issues. Indeed, we were defeated in almost one in five votes. There were moments of high drama and tension, but in the end the House performed the role it has carved out for itself and performed it well. There can be no question that each Bill reaching the statute book last Session benefited from its passage through this House. Whatever our tussles with the other place, we must have an established pattern of work here, rules to play by and conventions to respect and stick to. There must be a level playing field both in challenging the Government and in securing their business.
Of course, other factors have been at work, too. We have seen an influx of new Peers, many of them attending a State Opening for the first time today. The number of Peers attending the House regularly has risen, as has the number of Members wishing to take part in our proceedings. I am very pleased that early in this coming Session we will be appointing three new Select Committees, including one to conduct post-legislative scrutiny, and setting aside additional resource for pre-legislative scrutiny, thereby creating many more opportunities for many more Peers to participate in the committee work of the House.
There will, of course, be important legislative work to do, as your Lordships will have gleaned from the gracious Speech. There is no belittling the scale of the challenge faced by this coalition Government on taking office. The cornerstone of our shared programme for government was, and remains, to reduce the deficit, restore economic growth, promote investment and create jobs. The country was crying out for a change of values, craving more opportunity and fairness in our economy and more responsibility in our society. The Government are on the side of hard-working people, ending the something-for-nothing culture by reforming welfare and making work pay. We are reforming education to give all children the best start in life. We have capped immigration and we are protecting the NHS, increasing spending every single year. Over the next few years, our task is to ensure that these policies are implemented properly.
The early business of this House will include three Bills carried over in the House of Commons from the previous Session to this. They are the Civil Aviation Bill, the Local Government Finance Bill and the Financial Services Bill. A number of new Bills will also begin their passage in this House, including a Bill to establish a groceries code adjudicator. Each of those four measures received pre-legislative scrutiny last Session. In addition, I expect a Bill to ratify the treaty establishing the European stability mechanism; a crime and courts Bill to establish a National Crime Agency, a single county court system and a single Family Court in England and Wales; and a justice and security Bill to strengthen oversight of the security and intelligence services and other related matters. They will all start their passage in this House. The other place will first be dealing with voter registration, defamation, the enterprise Bill and public service pensions.
No doubt to the disappointment of many noble Lords, plans for reform of the composition of this House have been included in the gracious Speech. As the House knows, proposals were put before a Joint Committee at a formative stage for pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Government are now in the process of adapting their proposals in light of the committee’s report and the advice offered by noble Lords in the debate that ensued. I could not glean much from what the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said about support for this package of reform, and I very much hope that we will hear more tomorrow afternoon when we debate it in detail. We will be coming forward with legislation in due course, and I will say more on that when we resume the debate tomorrow.
For now, let me reiterate what I said a fortnight ago. For some time now, the outline of a consensus on the second phase of reform of this House has begun to seem possible. There is only one way to test whether that consensus really exists or can be secured, which is to introduce a Bill and then allow Parliament to take a view. This House is rightly regarded as the more mature of the two Houses of Parliament, not least in wear and tear, but I am glad to say, also in conduct. For that reason I have been among those stoking the expectation that when the Government submit their Bills for scrutiny and revision by this House, noble Lords will discharge their duty with their customary diligence and rigour, seizing the opportunity to showcase the House at its best, while we bask in the rare glow of attention. For my own part, as Leader of the House, I will continue to do all that is in my power to ensure that your Lordships’ voice is listened to, as well as recorded over the coming Session. I am confident that this House, steeped in experience as well as tradition, will not fail to rise to the task before us.
This Session will be much shorter than the last, but I can assure your Lordships that we will still have much to do. I am delighted to support the Motion of the noble Baroness to adjourn the debate.
Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, be appointed Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees for this Session.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, with his vast experience, I know that my noble friend Lord Boswell of Aynho will take on this role exceedingly ably.
It is a great pleasure at this point to pay tribute to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Roper. The work of the European Union Committee is very highly regarded not only within this House but among national parliaments across the EU, and that is due in no small part to the skill and dedication of its chairman. The noble Lord was exceptionally well qualified for the chairmanship of the European Union Committee. To pick just two highlights from his CV, in the 1990s he was the first director of the Institute for Security Studies in Paris, and in this House he was the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip from 2001 to 2005. From there it was a natural progression to becoming the chairman of the foreign affairs sub-committee, and in December 2008 the chairman of the Select Committee. As chairman, the noble Lord has steered the committee through a pivotal time for national parliaments in the EU, not to mention testing times for the European Union as a whole. Under the Lisbon treaty, national parliaments were given new powers as the guardians of subsidiarity, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, directed the adaptation of the committee’s work to these new powers and responsibilities. He has done that, as he has done all his work, with good humour, good sense and impressive attention to detail. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to him.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome to the role of Deputy Chairman of Committees the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho. I know that his long-standing interest in and involvement with Europe will stand him in good stead for the job, as of course it did for the noble Lord, Lord Roper. He has extraordinary and deep knowledge, and he is held in the highest regard throughout the European Union as well as in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, has steered the European Union Committee with his customary skill, knowledge and courtesy throughout his period as its chair. He has been applying all of those qualities to managing the House’s current proposals to do some redrawing of its committees with considerable success. I know that that has caused the noble Lord and members of the committee pain, but I am grateful for the way in which he carried out the change.
We on these Benches, where, we suspect, despite his shift 30 years ago, perhaps part of his heart still lies, thank him for all that he has done and we wish him well for the future.
Royal Commission
Lord Strathclyde Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, it not being convenient for Her Majesty personally to be present here this day, she has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared for proroguing this present Parliament.