King’s Speech

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde (Con)]

My Lords, I very much echo the words of my noble friend the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others who have said something about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I am glad to hear that there will be an opportunity soon for the House to pay a proper tribute to him.

I am delighted to follow the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I was going to follow him also in speaking about devolution, although it would have been of the Scottish variety rather than the English variety. However, yesterday afternoon, we heard my noble friend the Leader of the House speak, and I was so inspired by his words that I thought I would say a few words about something that affects us all, for which all of us bear some responsibility: namely, our behaviour in this Chamber and what we do as a House.

Over the course of the past few years there have been many occasions when we have debated the overall numbers of this House. But I do not think it has been at all helpful to look at those overall numbers. What we should be looking at are the overall numbers of Peers who actually vote. There were 180 votes during the course of the last Session, but only in about 30 of them did we produce more than 400 Peers to vote, and never did those numbers achieve 500—considerably less than the 800 which so many of us complain about. This House is a part-time House. It derives so much strength from Peers being able to do work outside it, volunteer outside it and play an important role in their own communities. For that reason, with this diversity of talent, experience and age, such diversity maintains the quality of the House and I think we should not forget it. My conclusion is that we should complain far less about our overall numbers and look at the numbers in the voting Lobbies to demonstrate our working capacity and our ability to effect change.

That leads me on to the number of government defeats. As I said, in the previous Session we had 180 votes. In those, the Government were defeated 125 times; the Government managed to win only 55 times. That is a loss ratio of 70%. It is too much. I have said before that this House should never become a House of opposition, but that is what these figures demonstrate it has become. Of course we should challenge the working of government by all means, but should it really be so often? How can we, on this side of the House, make the case for restraint on the number of new Peers when every day Members of the Government in another place are faced with that record?

That leads me on to the role of the Cross-Benchers, who play an important part in this House. But I wonder how many of us realise that, during the previous Session, the average Cross-Bench Member voted only 28% of the time in favour of the Government and 72% of the time against the Government. I suppose that we should be grateful for that. I wholly expect that sort of behaviour from the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, who are accountable for what they do, in a tangential way, through their representation in the House of Commons, but that is not true for the Cross-Benchers, who should perhaps keep a watchful eye on their voting records before people outside this House ask, “What are Members of the Cross Benches for?” A few weeks ago, my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia wrote an extremely well-researched paper criticising, in the Spectator magazine, the right reverend Prelates for their voting records; I would not want him to cast his eye, or his pen, over the role of the Cross-Benchers. This makes it so much harder for those of us who have, in the long term, been great defenders of the role of the Bishops in this House and the role of the Cross-Benchers.

My real role today is to talk about conventions of the House. Yesterday, my noble friend the Leader gave us the example of the Attlee Government, who managed to govern radically and successfully at a time when they had such a small percentage in this House. Out of that was born one of our premier conventions, the Salisbury/Addison convention, which regulates our ability to vote down manifesto Bills at Second Reading—although it does not, of course, stop us from suggesting amendments. A few years ago, I chaired a report on conventions and secondary legislation, and I am glad to say that was unnecessary. But if we are going to develop increased anti-government activism—in relation to any Government—against the elected House, perhaps it is time to look again at these conventions and see whether we should continually, again and again, vote for amendments and send them back to the House of Commons when the Government clearly have no intention of accepting them.

This is a great and noble House, and long may it continue in that manner.

Leveson Inquiry

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, I think we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, there seems to be one dimension that the discussion in this House so far has missed. A truly free press requires diversity of opinion and therefore diversity of ownership. A whole chunk of the recommendations in the report relate to that plurality point. The Government have a great chance. There is a Bill already before this House, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, in which the recommendations made here on media ownership, competition and plurality could be introduced at this stage. Will the noble Lord and, indeed, the Leader of the House prevail upon their colleagues to consider putting them into the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

We have only had one Conservative speak so I think it should be my noble friend Lord Elton.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I come back to the involvement of statute. I was 12 years old when the first of the succession of reports on the misconduct of the press was published. I was not old enough to take much interest in it, but I have taken an increasing level of interest in the successive ones. Every report has concluded that the press has undertaken to behave better. I was greatly impressed by the proposals from my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Black but it comes down to the fact that if their working is dependent on the press fulfilling its undertakings to behave differently, then I hope my noble friend and his right honourable friend will look at the record before deciding how much weight to put on those undertakings.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, on the issue of parliamentary procedure, is the noble Lord really happy that the first four amendments from this place that the Commons considered had only 26 minutes allocated to them? The House of Commons was allowed fewer than five hours to debate the 11 issues on which this House defeated the Government and offered its very earnestly considered advice.

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

The Motion before the House is that we should deal with amendments that have come back from the House of Commons. If noble Lords wish to have a debate about process and procedure in the House of Commons, they can table questions and debate the issues. This is not the time for that; this is a time to deal with the amendments that we have before us.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, before leaving that point, it was the Minister who raised the question of procedure and who said that these matters had been thoroughly dealt with in another place. The fact remains that the issue of mesothelioma, which was quite properly raised by the Minister’s noble friend Lord Higgins, was not debated on Second Reading, in Committee or on Report at all in another place. Had it not been for the amendment that your Lordships passed, it would not have been debated at all in another place. To give it only one hour at that stage and for it again to be timetabled is indicative of the need to reform not this place but, in light of what we heard earlier, the other place.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I laid out the position at some length on Valentine’s Day. The statement is recorded in Hansard and can be read by the noble Lord. I was at pains to point out that it is not a decision of the Government but a decision of the House of Commons, and the Speaker of the House of Commons taking the advice of his Clerks, which ultimately decides whether or not to engage in financial privilege. The noble Lord asked me whether he would be wasting his time. I could not possibly say whether he would be wasting his time or not, but if the House chooses to amend this Bill in substantial financial ways, as with any other Bill I would have thought, from a clear reading of my statement and looking at the experience of the relationship between the two Houses over many years, that it is likely to engage financial privilege.

Report received.

Magna Carta

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, does my noble friend think that the Barons who look down upon us daily from their plinths above this Chamber would be best pleased if, a month after the next general election, they looked down upon a hybrid Assembly with a group of senators in it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there has not been a question from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord McNally]

That the debates on the Motions in the names of Lord Sugar and Baroness Pitkeathley set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on the Order Paper.

Personal Injury Lawyers

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

I really do not think that the Opposition should have two goes; it is the turn of my noble friend.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Will my noble friend please take even more account of the fee-farming industry that has grown up in this country, which encourages indiscriminate and, I have to say, false claims because neither the fee-farming company nor the solicitor who purchases the case from the fee farmer ever sees the client? Without that, there is no constraint on dishonesty.

Courts: Super-injunctions

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we have had 30 minutes and I think we will go on to the next business.

Justice: Judicial Appointments

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, we have hardly started. There is time for both noble Lords. Only one of us can be standing up at one time.

Bribery Act 2010

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, there is time for all these questions. Perhaps we can hear first from my noble friend and then from the noble Lord.

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that bribery and corruption are hugely damaging to developing countries, not least to those in North Africa and the Middle East, and that that is a very important reason why the Government should not delay any further in bringing this Act into force?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, two of my noble friends wish to speak, but my noble friend Lord Campbell rose to his feet earlier on.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

I am much obliged to my noble friend. This is not a long question. Is the noble Lord aware that nothing he has said justifies the conduct of the Government on this Bill—nothing at all?