House of Lords: Questions
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for raising the issue this evening.
I come to this topic with a degree of expertise—or a degree of experience, at least, if not expertise—as I think I am entitled to say that I am still the Minister who has answered more Questions from the Dispatch Box than any other. I answered more than 1,000 between 1979 and 1990. Since then, of course, I have not been able to ask anything like as many.
I want first to touch on Private Notice Questions, which are very rare. This is unfortunate because there are often issues which ought to be—and could be—raised by Private Notice Questions. We are allowed one additional Question by private notice each day but the criteria under which Private Notice Questions are allowed are very strict and often when they are submitted to the Lord Speaker they are disallowed—no doubt entirely correctly—because they do not meet the criteria. I understand that the Lord Speaker inquires of officials in the House, including the Government Whips, as to whether she should allow the question. It is unfortunate that the Government Whips should have a say on whether a Private Notice Question is allowed because they would say no, would they not, given the circumstances that often prevail if the question is of a sensitive nature. The criteria by which Private Notice Questions are allowed or disallowed ought to be reviewed. I have made that proposition to the Lord Chairman of Committees and I hope he will take it to the appropriate committee when he has an opportunity to do so.
As for Oral Questions, I suggest that we have five instead of four a day. We tried that experiment in the past but it did not work out then. The problem is that when asking their supplementary questions, noble Lords and noble Baronesses go on for too long; and, I am sorry to say, Ministers sometimes go on for too long, not only with the original Answer but with their supplementary answers too. If all noble Lords and noble Baronesses could be persuaded to keep their answers shorter, there might be more scope to have a fifth Question, which would be a good innovation.
I also suggest that when we sit on Fridays we could perhaps allow two Oral Questions—at present we have none on Fridays—which would provide a few more spaces in the year for that purpose.
On Questions for Short Debate, we now have Grand Committees in which those questions can be asked. This is an excellent innovation because more Questions for Short Debate can now be asked in the Grand Committee, although I am told that the list is not full. There are still plenty of gaps in that arrangement and not enough such questions are tabled. Again casting back on my memory, I recall answering what we used to call Unstarred Questions, which are now Questions for Short Debate. I remember having the privilege of answering one in white tie and tails many years ago before we went off to a diplomatic reception or some such event. I have not seen that recently from noble Lords and noble Baronesses speaking from the Government Front Bench, but perhaps that will happen in the future.
Finally, I do not have too much to say about Questions for Written Answer. They work well. Ministers might try to answer them more quickly occasionally but the arrangement is basically sound. I hope that it will continue and that noble Lords will continue to use that facility.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
The beauty of the system as it stands is that if you have a burning question you know you will get to ask it if you are willing to put in a little effort. People say, “I do not have time to queue”, but it is a privilege to ask Oral Questions in this House. It is a service we perform on behalf of the public. If we feel the question we wish to ask is important, then, quite honestly, we should make time to queue. All of us should be humble enough to do that.
The current system is simple and open. Those first in the queue get their questions asked. The problem with the method of the ballot, if it were adopted for regular Oral Questions, is that it could introduce the temptation to game the system because it would become less transparent and more complicated. What worries me particularly is the possibility that Peers might get together to submit the same Question or a variation on it to increase its chance of winning the ballot. I am not saying that Members would do that but it is a temptation that would then exist which was not there before. Would we be getting a daily list of every entry into every ballot for every Question to ensure that this could not happen? Frankly, that sounds like an administrative nightmare and a waste of public money, if the ballot system were to be introduced. In the end, the system would be frustrating for those who continually have to resubmit their Question and might never get to ask it or have any control over the day on which they do get to ask it.
The same problems do not exist for the excellent balloted topical Questions element, because at any one time there is a limit to the number of topical Questions, and there is a small window of time in which to ask them. The Table Office, as we know from experience, takes seriously the decision of whether a Question is topical or not, so with topicals you either win or lose without the worry of continually having to resubmit your Question more than perhaps once or twice. There is of course a way of dealing with the problem, as the noble Lord sees it, without changing the system. If we feel that too many of the same people are asking Oral Questions, we should limit further the number of regular Questions an individual can ask from the current seven to perhaps five a year. It might be helpful if that would significantly increase the number of questioners. From the stats kindly provided by the Table Office for last year, by my calculation that would have freed up 25 regular Questions—a week and a half’s-worth, so not that many—but perhaps having some taken up by new questioners. The fact remains, however, that there will always be some people who want to ask Oral Questions more than others. Although Oral Questions are important, they are still only one way to participate in the business of the House.
If there is some tweaking to be done, it is regarding supplementary questions. I think that the House is correctly tolerant about the use of notes for asking supplementaries. The ability to ask a good Question is not the same as the ability to learn lines, and if there is one thing that would markedly reduce the number of people participating at Question Time, it would be to enforce the non-reading guidance. The House is also correctly intolerant of overly long supplementaries, of which we have too many, and often asked by those without notes in hand. Many of us have on occasion pushed it to the limit, but there is some unspoken boundary that does get crossed, and it sometimes feels as though we could have got in another two or even more speakers during a Question if we had not had those especially long supplementaries. Does the Minister think that enough guidance, either formal or informal, is given on this, particularly to new Members?
The popularity of Oral Questions for Members is one valid measure of their success. At four, we have the right number of Questions, and here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. There is a good balance between regular and topical and they last for the right length of time. Only a minority of Members leave before the end, but if they lasted for more than 30 minutes, that would not be the case.
Lord Trefgarne
My suggestion was that we keep Question Time to 30 minutes, but have five Questions instead of four.
The Earl of Clancarty
That may be slightly different, but we have tried five Questions in the past and I do not think it worked. I believe that, as it stands, we have the right system for generating questions. We should not tamper with a system unless we are confident that it can be improved.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be the Minister responding to what has undoubtedly been an extremely worthwhile short debate on a topic that we all care about very much. I think all noble Lords will agree that Question Time is a valued opportunity for noble Lords from across the House to hold the Government to account, often in a very immediate way when we think of topical Questions in particular. That is why I begin by saying that I am right behind the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, in wanting to encourage a broad range of contributions at Question Time, and indeed in our work more generally.
I think, too, that this House sets itself apart from other legislative Chambers with its range of expertise and range of experience in numerous fields. It is through that expertise and experience that we best complement the work of the other place. It is undoubtedly important that we should always encourage as broad a range of contributions as we can to inform and guide our business. I think that is common ground.
Certainly, that is something that the previous coalition Government and we as the current Government have sought to do over the past few years. For example, we have expanded the opportunities available for Peers to ask Questions for Short Debate by introducing a slot for topical QSDs, which provides a fresh opportunity for a timely debate on the Floor of the House each Thursday, and by committing to set aside regularly a day in the Moses Room for five Back-Bench Members to ask QSDs. I am pleased to say that from where we sit that has been a success: no fewer than 104 Members of the House were able to ask QSDs in the last Session. We have also increased opportunities to serve on Select Committees, having supported the establishment of two net additional units of committee activity since 2012, four of which are devoted to ad hoc committees.
Turning to Question Time itself, I should perhaps start by making the point that we already hear from a broad range of contributors. Indeed, in the last Session more than 430 Members asked one or more Questions or supplementary questions. That is nearly 90% of our average daily attendance. Limiting Members to no more than seven Questions in a calendar year is another way in which we have sought to foster even greater diversity; indeed, 10 Members were caught by that limit last year.
Naturally, that does not mean that we should not look at what more might be done and I well appreciate the concerns that have been raised this evening. In particular, there is no doubt that we hear from some voices around the House considerably more often than others. There has been unanimity this evening that we should try to do something about that, and I will say more on that topic in a moment. Looking at the last Session, for instance, 16 Members made more than 25 contributions each at Question Time. Of the total number of questions asked, one in five were asked by the 20 most frequent contributors. I would just add that with three-quarters of the 20 most frequent contributors coming from the opposition side, there is certainly no danger that the Government are not being held to account. We certainly feel that we are. I also know, as we have heard in this debate, not least from my noble friend Lord Sherbourne, that some Members find it hard to succeed in tabling an Oral Question; others find it hard to intervene with supplementaries.
Some speakers this evening, including my noble friend Lord Sherbourne, were concerned that Front-Benchers tend to dominate at Question Time. I sympathise with that point—after all, 30% of the 25 most frequent contributors in the last Session sat on the Opposition Front Bench, and more than 10% of all questions were asked by the Opposition Front Bench. If we are to continue the practice of the Opposition Front Bench having a supplementary on nearly every Question—and I welcomed the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on that point—it is worth considering whether Questions themselves should only or usually be tabled by Back-Bench Members. For what it is worth, that was generally the rule when my party was last in opposition. The Front Bench was under standing instructions to defer to Back-Benchers other than in the most burning circumstances.
What changes might ensue from this? If we can make changes for the better, of course it is worth finding a way to consider those ideas. Several ideas have been raised today, which I will come on to. Before I do, I emphasise one thing, which is that noble Lords who want to change the way that things are done should feel empowered to propose it, and indeed it is open to any Member with a proposal to write to the Chairman of Committees, as chairman of the Procedure Committee, to look to take it forward, whatever it may be. I know that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne would welcome that process.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have already written to the Lord Chairman, and he has referred me to the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Earl Howe
Well, clearly a conversation needs to ensue from that. I am grateful to my noble friend. I can tell him and other noble Lords that my noble friend the Leader of the House is always keen to facilitate the consideration of any new ideas. Some noble Lords this evening raised the idea of a ballot for Oral Question slots. If I understood him correctly, my noble friend Lord Sherbourne was against a ballot of Questions but in favour of a ballot of Peers. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, raised some cogent objections to the whole proposition.
The idea of a ballot has been raised frequently before, and my noble friend the Leader of the House facilitated a suggestion to this end from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, at a Procedure Committee meeting earlier this year. However, there was no consensus within the committee at that point, as there appeared not to be in 2013 when, despite the agreement of the Procedure Committee and government support, the Procedure Committee’s proposal to allocate Questions by ballot was withdrawn by the then Chairman of Committees when it became clear that there was no support on the Opposition Benches for the change.
We see merit in the idea of a ballot for the allocation of Oral Questions if we can avoid the pitfalls highlighted by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Armed Forces: Reserves
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freeman (Con)
My Lords, in the interests of noble Lords, who may not be able to hear me because of my croaky throat, I shall keep my remarks reasonably short. I am sure the Deputy Chairman will appreciate that that might allow a little more time for some of my colleagues. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Howe is to reply to this Question for Short Debate. The Minister has been in place for only a short period of time, but I think that there is general agreement on both sides of the House that he has grasped his portfolio with alacrity, calmness and a great deal of courtesy. We look forward to his reply.
There has been some very poor press over at least the past six months, and the House has been paying close attention to recruitment levels in the Armed Forces. Recruitment into the Reserve Forces has received a bad press and has caused alarm among a number of noble Lords on all sides who hold the strength of the Reserve Forces dearly. I hope very much indeed that, to the extent that there is going to be some better news, the noble Earl will be kind enough to brief colleagues around the table, not only for the record but to instil a greater degree of confidence in the press.
In 1986, I became a junior Minister, serving my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who was the Minister of State and who is in his place today. I had responsibility for the Reserve Forces at that time. A little later when I had left Parliament, Lord Younger, who was a very distinguished Secretary of State for Defence—I had the pleasure of serving twice in the ministry, partly under his stewardship—who had also left, rang me up to ask me to come to see him. He was then in the private sector, so I went to very palatial premises. He did not enter into a discussion; rather, he issued a very polite instruction, which was that he wanted me to take over from him as president, in 1999, of the Council of Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations. I served in that post for 12 years, and I pay tribute to my successor, my noble friend Lord De Mauley, who has taken up that responsibility with great energy and enthusiasm. When I first became the president, the Army contingent of our Reserve Forces numbered more than 50,000. I think that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is nodding his head in agreement with my recollection.
Lord Freeman
That shows that my noble friend had better mathematical training than me, but that figure probably includes all the Reserve Forces. It was certainly a very much larger number than we have today. What we need in this different era, one in which we face different threats because they no longer come from the continent but from around the world, is satisfactory size Reserve Forces—and in that I include the Maritime Reserve and the Royal Air Force Reserve. However, I shall concentrate my brief remarks principally on the Army. I believe that the strength of the Reserve Forces depends on a number of key factors, of which I will cover only three. However, there are many more to which your Lordships may wish to refer in due course.
The first factor is recruitment. Recruitment responds to the prospect of deployment. It is a natural desire of those joining any of the three reserves to serve the country, and the opportunity to do it in practice and reality is extremely important. That prospect is vital. I understand that there has been some progress—I look forward to hearing from the Minister about this later—towards meeting the target of 30,100 trained Army reservists by 2020.
In my judgment, there are three specific categories of recruitment needs. First, we have to attract young officers, coming principally from universities or colleges of further education, because they are there to lead their men. Records—certainly over the past 10 years, to my knowledge—have shown great difficulty in recruitment, particularly when the economy is growing. It is very important that we concentrate on that, working in tandem with those in higher education institutions who share that view. Secondly, recruitment figures from the medical profession are not brilliant at the moment. In my limited experience, the medical profession responds to a call for reserves if it understands the need and the threat. Nothing could be more dramatic than the service of reservists and regulars in Sierra Leone during the Ebola outbreak. That is one example, but there are many others around the world where those coming from a medical background to join the reserves have a real contribution to make. Thirdly, on ethnic minorities, we still have a lot more to do in persuading all the sections of our ethnic minorities in this country that it is a noble and worthwhile demonstration of citizenship to join the reserves.
The second factor is the prospect of deployment abroad. I think that as young men and women we all enjoyed the prospect, at university or in higher education, of being able to travel abroad. That is particularly relevant for reserves. So I appreciate that we have had deployment in Kabul in Afghanistan, Cyprus, Ukraine and the Falklands over the past 10 years—I may have my figures slightly in error—but the thrust of that deployment seems to have been working. I hope that that opportunity will continue to encourage recruitment. When deployed, it is very important that the reservist has the same kit, weapons and accoutrements as regular soldiers, and there has to be proper training beforehand with the regulars so that they feel part of one combined armed force.
The third factor is the recognition that the population at large sometime does not give to those who have served in the reserves. According to the records that I have looked at, we have had 70 decorations for conflict abroad over the past 10 years, I believe. That recognition is extremely important. Thirty-one reservists made the ultimate sacrifice and died in Iraq or Afghanistan. How many people, even in this great Parliament, would be able to recognise that even that small, but real, number had made that sacrifice?
I have taken heart, and I encourage others to read the excellent report from General Brims, who was chairman of the review. I shall paraphrase one quote for reasons of brevity: General Brims’s excellent report came to the conclusion that solid progress was being made. His comment about the cultural disconnect between regular and reserve components is important, and we have to do something about that. That is the next challenge which we have to face. I look forward to the other contributions to be made by noble Lords, particularly the Minister.
Defence: UK Territorial Waters
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are satisfied with the present arrangements for detecting and shadowing non-NATO naval units which may enter the United Kingdom’s territorial waters without prior authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, this Government take security of our maritime boundaries very seriously. Our Armed Forces have a multilayered submarine detection capability, using highly effective assets including frigates, submarines and anti-submarine helicopters, and maritime patrol aircraft support from NATO allies. We, in turn, often support them when they have capability shortfalls. It is routine for NATO allies to support each other in this way and demonstrates one of the benefits to the UK of NATO membership.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is he really satisfied, though, with the maritime patrol aircraft arrangements that he described? Are those arrangements permanent, or does he have some better plans for the future?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we have a robust range of measures for detecting and shadowing non-NATO vessels that may seek to enter our territorial waters without authority. We continue to develop new detection capabilities to maintain our operational advantage. SDSR 2015 will allow us to review the full spectrum of submarine detection capability, including maritime patrol aircraft. Meanwhile, RAF air crew are flying in allied MPA to retain the skills to regenerate the capability, should we decide to do so.
Armed Forces: Aircraft Carrier
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, this is a fantastic aircraft. British pilots who fly it tell me it is a real step change in capability. The F35 fleet has now flown some 20,000 hours and successfully completed two sets of sea trials off the USS “Wasp”. The F35 is the world’s largest single defence programme, and the UK is playing a leading role as the only non-US level 1 partner, resulting in significant contracts and jobs for UK industry.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is it not intended that the United States Marine Corps will purchase and operate the same aircraft as us? Will its aircraft be operating from our carriers?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, British F35B aircraft and pilots will be the first to operate from our carriers. UK pilots, engineers and deck handlers are currently operating from US Navy carriers, developing and maintaining skill sets to regenerate our carrier strike capability, working, as my noble friend said, with the US Marine Corps. We continue to identify opportunities to develop interoperability and synergy with our allies, including potential options to operate US Marine Corps aircraft from our carriers.
Defence: Type 26 Frigates
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, it will be for the 2015 SDSR to consider how best to deliver the capability that the Royal Navy requires in the long term, but to ensure that the Navy gets the number of Type 26s and the capability that it requires we must be certain that we have a mature design and build programme before committing to an initial order size. I can assure the noble Lord that we expect to make decisions on some of the longer-lead items shortly.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, would it not be a good idea for some of these frigates to be built other than in Scotland, in view of the uncertainties surrounding that place?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the Type 26 will be built by BAE Systems on the Clyde. Complex UK warships are built only in UK shipyards and we have no plans to change this. Although the contract has not been awarded, we have been clear that from 2015 the Clyde will be the UK’s only shipyard that builds complex warships.
Al-Sweady Inquiry Report
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and I pay tribute to all those service men and women who served in Iraq. I know that the noble Lord had a very distinguished service out there. Lessons have been learnt. Ministers are very concerned about the situation; we have discussed it at great length. I assure the noble Lord that lessons have been learnt. We do not want ever to have another inquiry like this. I make no criticism of the previous Government for calling this inquiry. There were very good reasons for doing it. However, we need to talk to the legal industry to see whether there is some way of avoiding going down this road ever again.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, it is clear that the action of the lawyers, which has been commented on by several noble Lords, greatly contributed to the huge cost of this exercise. Can my noble friend say whether there is any possibility of reclaiming some of those costs, possibly from the firms of lawyers concerned?
Lord Astor of Hever
I agree entirely with my noble friend. There is no provision for the sponsoring department to recover costs incurred during a public inquiry. However, in light of the inquiry’s findings and the claimant’s disclosure failure, I assure my noble friend that we intend to appeal a costs order in the stayed judicial review, with a view to recovering some of the costs of that litigation.
Afghanistan: Interpreters
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, on continuing safety, we have an enduring commitment to ensure the safety of our Afghan staff. Anyone who feels in any danger will contact our staff. On who is responsible, it is the same team in Kabul which was previously responsible for delivering our intimidation policy.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does my noble friend the Minister realise that when it comes to honouring the debt that we owe to these brave men, there is widespread disquiet that the Government’s policy, particularly in relation to those on the intimidation scheme, is discreditable and even Kafkaesque? Is it not true that few if any of those on the intimidation scheme have received a visit to their home or community to assess risk because it is too risky to do so? If our current staff cannot even visit them in their own community because it is too dangerous, is it not too dangerous for them to live there?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I think that we have got a good news story here. We have engaged with media outlets and briefed individuals on the progress of our two LES schemes. Our focus remains the swift implementation of the generous offers under the ex gratia scheme and the thorough investigation of claims of and effective support for locally engaged staff who believe that their safety is threatened.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, what support will be provided to these people when they come to the United Kingdom?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we take care to welcome staff and their families and ease their arrival and integration into this country. Before they leave, we give staff an information pack on living in the UK and offer a question-and-answer session. On arrival, local authorities provide them with support for the first four months. They help them settle into their new neighbourhood and access the benefits and services to which they are entitled, including schools and healthcare.
Armed Forces: Biofuels
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we are aware that the United States and the other countries mentioned by the noble Lord are experimenting with biofuels in their naval vessels and aircraft. The results of the performance of the fuels are being shared through equipment manufacturers and international forums such as the Air and Space Interoperability Council. The defence equipment and support fuel team regularly engages with manufacturers to understand the most recent research and how this might apply to the MoD’s fuel requirements in the future. Biofuels, however, are not the only answer, and the MoD will use the most appropriate solution available to reduce fossil fuel consumption, whether that is through using alternative technology or equipment, reducing activity levels, using alternative fuels or interoperability with our allies.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is there not more than one respectable view as to the desirability of biofuels, given the extensive agricultural facilities required to produce them?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am aware of the concerns about biofuels competing with food production but, as I said in my opening response, the MoD uses biofuels for road transport where EU regulations oblige fuel manufacturers to include them, and only for that.
Defence Reform Bill
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I was expecting there to be a separate debate on Amendment 11 in his name. I am a little confused by the procedure that he is now proposing.
Lord Rosser
I understand that I am in order in speaking to the amendments in the group. The two amendments in my name are Amendments 10 and 11, but I will refer later to Amendment 9, which has already been moved. I have been advised that I am not out of order in making the contribution I am making, so I intend to continue.
Lord Trefgarne
In fact, it is open to any noble Lord to ask to have a particular amendment debated separately. I do not propose to do so on this occasion, but it is open to any noble Lord to do so if he wants.
Lord Rosser
I was talking about our view that Part 1 should be withdrawn and about what happened in Committee. The Government declined to withdraw Part 1. We felt, and still feel, that it should be deleted because it provides for an untested and untried major change in defence procurement which the Government do not now intend to introduce and for which they cannot and will not be able to produce any evidence that it will provide a better alternative at some time in the future than either the existing arrangements or, significantly, the further developed DE&S model, which is not even yet up and running. That will now be a matter for a future Government, if that future Government decide to proceed with the GOCO option.
In Committee, we also moved an amendment, which we regarded as very much second-best behind the withdrawal of Part 1, for a super-affirmative order which would be required to be passed by both Houses before Part 1 could be brought into force. We have included a similar amendment in the group that we are discussing. I do not intend to go through in detail the arguments that we put forward in Committee in support of the super-affirmative. They are recorded in the Hansard of the Committee stage. They set out in detail what the super-affirmative would provide for as set out in these amendments.
The super-affirmative order is not something novel. It has been used by this Government. They added the super-affirmative procedure to the recent Crime and Courts Act in respect of any future order made by the relevant Secretary of State to modify the functions of the National Crime Agency. That super-affirmative provision in the Crime and Courts Act requires the Secretary of State to consult the persons who would be affected by an order to modify the functions of the National Crime Agency and lays down minimum periods for consultation and subsequent scrutiny. It also requires the Secretary of State to have regard to any recommendations or representations made by Parliament during the scrutiny period with the subsequent option of laying a revised draft order. I again simply make the point that we are not talking about a minor change that might be made in the future on the basis of affirmative orders but about an untested and untried major change in defence procurement involving more than £10 billion of taxpayer expenditure each year.
The amendment that has been moved by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is an improvement on the current provision in the Bill, and we heard from the Minister—if I understood him correctly—that he will come back with an amendment at Third Reading which will be in line with that moved by the noble and gallant Lord. However, while that amendment provides for a White Paper and an impact assessment, it does not provide for an independent assessment or the involvement of the Defence Select Committee prior to an affirmative order being considered. It thus appears not to provide any minimum timescale between the production of the White Paper and the impact statement for consultation and scrutiny before any vote in Parliament.
It is worth pointing out that government departments do not always produce adequate and appropriate information to support orders they place before Parliament. We had yet another example of this only last night in this Chamber in respect of a Home Office order. Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had criticised the poor quality of documentation produced by the Home Office accompanying the order and had written to the Minister of State concerned to voice its detailed concerns. When the committee received the Minister of State’s reply, it found that letter equally disappointing and wrote in its report on the order being considered last night that,
“we found the letter to be no more convincing on the merits of the policy than the Explanatory Memorandum”.
Our super-affirmative would address those potential concerns about the quality of documentation as there is provision for independent assessment and the involvement of the Defence Select Committee.
I take note of the intervention by the Minister to indicate—if I can use the expression—the Government’s acceptance of the amendment in the sense that the Minister intends to come back with a government amendment which, as I understand it, will say either the same thing or much the same thing as the amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. Obviously we will want to look at the amendment that the Government table at Third Reading and determine whether to support it or whether to seek to amend it.
Lord Stirrup
My Lords, I, too, have my name attached to Amendment 9. I do not wish to make the mistake of failing to accept yes for an answer, so I will merely say that I am extremely grateful to the Minister for agreeing to take this away. I look forward to seeing the amendment as drafted by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig at Third Reading.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, like other noble Lords I have had some reservations about the GOCO proposal but I am bound to say that my noble friend the Minister has gone a long way to meet those concerns. His observations this afternoon and his acceptance in principle of the amendment proposed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has further assisted me in this matter. That said, Amendment 11—I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was anxious that we should discuss it at the same time—goes much too far. The GOCO proposal, which we have already discussed, is adequately protected by the steps which my noble friend has made. Therefore, the call from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for a super-affirmative resolution is very much over the top in this particular circumstance and I hope he will not press it. The amendment will achieve nothing, save a further significant delay to a measure which all sides of the House agree has considerable merit and the potential to save the taxpayer a considerable sum in the future. I believe this super-affirmative resolution amendment was tabled only last night and I suggest that it therefore bears all the hallmarks of rather hurried drafting.
Flooding: Military Deployment
Lord Trefgarne Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I said in my initial Answer, we are looking at this whole process to see how to improve it in future. This is one area that we will certainly look at closely.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
Can my noble friend confirm that the deployment to which the Question and his Answer relate had no effect on routine operations?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the personnel allocated to assist with flooding were selected in such a way that their participation would have no impact on military units’ preparedness for future operations. That includes contingency operations should assistance be requested in the event of future flooding or other severe weather.