G20

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on the G20 made by the Prime Minister. We endorse wholeheartedly the congratulations that the Prime Minister has passed to the remarkable lady, Aung San Suu Kyi. However, we also agree that as we celebrate her freedom, there is still a long journey before there will be a free and democratic Burma. I also welcome the release of Paul and Rachel Chandler.

On the G20, I welcome the South Korean Government’s success in keeping development on the G20 agenda. Development aid is not only important for the lives it saves; it also makes an important contribution to global growth. I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister pressed the G8 countries that were there in Seoul to keep their promises on aid.

On climate change, can the Leader of the House tell us how the promises made at Seoul will be turned into action at Cancun?

On banks, we welcome the continuation of work to reform the financial regulatory framework set in motion at previous G20 meetings. The increased stringency of the Basel Committee’s capital requirements is a welcome step in making banks across the world more stable. However, further work is needed to implement these reforms. We recognise that this is difficult. Can the Leader of the House tell us what he believes is the way to balance the need for financial stability with the economic recovery?

On growth, we all know that for the UK global growth is always important—we are a trading nation. Jobs in this country depend on strong exports, which in turn depend on a growing global economy. Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that dependence is even greater because of the decisions that his Government have taken on the economy here at home? Cutting public spending and increasing VAT will dampen domestic demands and hit jobs. The Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that because of the cuts he is making, Britain must increase exports by more than £100 billion to sustain jobs and growth. How can that happen if our export markets are failing to grow? Do the Government recognise that the global economy on which we are now even more reliant is fragile?

That is why this G20 was so important. The most recent figures show that growth in our largest export market—Europe—has halved and that the US is still facing high unemployment and slow growth. Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that with growing disagreements between major economies about currencies and trade restrictions, co-ordinated action through the G20 is more important than ever?

I suggest, therefore, that the G20 was a missed opportunity. No one expected the problems to be solved overnight, but there was no co-ordinated action to support jobs and growth worldwide; little progress on reaching agreement on currencies, particularly between China and the US; little assurance by way of anything practical to prevent a resurgence of protectionism over the next few years, but I hear what the noble Lord said on that issue; and no action to restart the Doha round of trade negotiations, however difficult that may have been.

This was the fifth G20 summit since the global financial crisis hit in 2008. During that time the UK provided leadership for co-ordinated global action. Can the Leader of the House tell us why the Prime Minister failed to offer that leadership in the run-up to Seoul, and at Seoul itself, at such a crucial time for jobs in this country and for the global economy?

Now that the summit is over, the questions that remain are: what was the Prime Minister’ strategy; what was he aiming to achieve; did he have any proposals for jobs and growth, and if so what were they? We are told in the media that tonight, in a speech at the Lord Mayor’s banquet, the Prime Minister will talk about,

“a Britain at the centre of all the big discussions. Producing the ideas”.

What were the Prime Minister’s ideas for the G20 and what did he say in those discussions? Is it not the case that, because the Prime Minister has refused to take action on jobs and growth in Britain, he would find it difficult to lead in the debate about jobs and growth internationally? Is it not true that, because the Government refuse to recognise that the economic crisis was global, they find it difficult to engage with international efforts to tackle it?

No one expected the summit to be straightforward and it was not. It saddens me, however, to think that rather than showing strong global leadership—strong leadership in the search for global solutions to global problems—we in Britain looked as though we were on the sidelines.

Coalition Policies

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

Of course we do that already, vis-à-vis the Queen’s Speech, but we would not have needed to publish this document if there had been a clear majority by the Conservative Party. It was needed because we got together with our Liberal Democrat allies to create the coalition.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his utterly charming responses this afternoon. Does he believe—I do not—that the Salisbury/Addison convention should apply to policies which are outlined in the coalition agreement?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Broadly speaking, yes, I do, because they have the support of the majority in the House of Commons and were overwhelmingly and clearly pointed out in the respective manifestos. There are one or two exceptions where that is not the case but, as I said before, we will recognise them when we see them.

European Council

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister in the other place on the conclusions of the European summit last week. Europe is indeed an important issue for this country and we know how vital it is for our economy, for trade and for jobs. But we on this side of the House recognise that it is a difficult issue for the Benches opposite because not only are they divided on the issue itself, they are doubly divided. On Europe, the Liberal Democrats are fundamentally opposed to the formal position of the Conservative Party, as the debates in this House showed so clearly when we took through the Bill to put in place the Lisbon treaty. The Liberal Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder with this party on the Bill and on Europe, to the fury of the Conservative Party, now their partners in government. However, the splitting does not end there because Europe is still a fault line within the Conservative Party itself—a party which can combine the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, at one end of the spectrum on Europe, and in the other House the Member for Rushcliffe, the right honourable Ken Clarke, at the other end of the spectrum. It is, indeed, a remarkable containment, even if the party has to keep them in separate Houses of Parliament to do it.

I pay tribute to the skill of the Prime Minister in keeping the lid on these divisions by the simple stratagem of not talking about the issue of Europe at all. Strange, then, that the Prime Minister should so carelessly abandon this tactic in the way he dealt with last week’s European Council, especially on the question of the EU budget. Far from remaining silent he talked. Indeed, he talked and he talked and he talked. He talked about how outrageous some proposals were and about what needed to be done—clearly much to the puzzlement of other European leaders. They had not realised that they were there to debate the EU budget, principally because they, like the Prime Minster, knew that it had all been settled in August and that therefore there was nothing else to talk about. However, that did not stop the Prime Minister because he mostly talked about the historic triumph he had managed to bring about.

When people talk quite as much as the Prime Minister did about what he, and he alone, had achieved, it tends to make most people count the political spoons. We, on these Benches, do not think that the Prime Minister came back from the summit with quite as full a canteen of cutlery as he implied. Can the Leader of the House confirm that, rather than his being instrumental in holding down the EU Council to a budget increase of 2.9 per cent as the Prime Minister in effect claimed, the Council of Ministers had agreed this increase back in August? I ask the Leader of the House to address this question specifically. Can he confirm that at that time some 20 EU countries voted for that level of increase and that the letter on the budget, about which the Prime Minister showed off so fulsomely, was signed by fewer countries than had voted for the budget in August—13 in all as opposed to the original 20—and that the Prime Minister lost support rather than gained it? Can the Leader of the House confirm that, having voted to oppose the increase of 2.9 per cent in August, the Prime Minister now supports an increase in the EU budget of 2.9 per cent and that this is a clear U-turn? Many in this House, including those on the Benches opposite, know that in trying to talk up as his own achievement something that had already been long agreed, the Prime Minister was transparently and inadequately attempting to appease the Eurosceptic right in the Conservative Party. They know, too, that such posturing not only fools no one but is ultimately damaging to Britain’s credibility in Europe.

I turn now to the question of treaty amendments. The Conservative Party tried in vain during the passage of the Lisbon treaty Bill to attack this party on the issue of a referendum. However much it tries to scream and shout about it, this party’s position on a referendum was clear: we said that we would hold a referendum on a new constitution for the EU and that, because Lisbon was a further treaty like Amsterdam and Maastricht, it was not a constitution and so it was appropriate for Parliament to consider it just as it had done with Amsterdam and Maastricht. Indeed, when we debated this matter and voted on it, a majority in this House understood that point clearly.

In response, the Conservative Party made two promises: it promised to hold a referendum on Lisbon and it promised to hold a referendum if there were, as it likes to put it, any further transfers of power from Britain to Brussels. We know that the Conservative Party has already explicitly broken its promise on Lisbon because there was no referendum. We now see the Conservative Government—I am sorry, the coalition Government—apparently in the process of breaking that second promise by walking away from the pledge to hold a referendum on any so-called transfer of powers. Can the Leader of the House confirm that proposals for change to the Lisbon treaty are likely? Can he confirm that proposals for treaty change will flow from the conclusions of this summit? Can he confirm that if such proposals are made for treaty change, the Government will put these proposals to a referendum of the British people? Can he confirm that if it does not, the Conservative Party will indeed have broken the second promise it has made to the British people on these issues?

I suspect that the EU leaders who attended last week’s summit would be astonished at these being the issues debated in your Lordships' House today and the other place yesterday. They will have thought that they were at a very different summit, one which was about economic governance, sustainable growth and climate change. All are hugely important issues which were almost entirely eclipsed by the rhetoric which the Prime Minister indulged in. I recognise that the Leader of the House touched on them in the Statement repeated today, but they were not the issues about which the Prime Minister was boasting last week.

On the first issue, economic governance, we welcome sensible proposals for greater co-operation to secure economic stability across Europe. In principle, we also welcome the idea of putting in place clear arrangements for providing help to eurozone countries which get into difficulty, rather than relying on a more informal, ad hoc approach. However, we also believe that the right balance needs to be struck between the need for stability and the need for growth in the eurozone.

With regard to the forthcoming G20 summit in Seoul, on the prospects for the world economy, the Leader of the House will know that an increase in trade accounts for almost half the growth that the Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecasts for the UK next year. We shall see whether that prediction is maintained when the OBR brings forward its updated forecast on 29 November. In advance of that, will the Leader inform the House what discussions were had at the European Council on uncertainty in the world economy and what part Europe can play in helping ensure that economic demand is sustained?

Thirdly, on the forthcoming Cancun conference on climate change, the prospects do not look bright for completing the unfinished work of the Copenhagen conference. Will the Leader set out in greater detail than was given in the cursory mention of Cancun in the Statement what the Government will do to advance a deal on finance, which is both a precondition of progress and an essential objective for Cancun?

For the Benches opposite, Europe remains an awkward and embarrassing issue in different ways and for different reasons. But that awkwardness cannot be brushed aside by the bluster which the Prime Minister so unfortunately engaged in last week. Everyone in this country whose job, contract or business depends on Europe knows how important an issue Europe is. It is too important for the political posturing that we saw from the Government last week. We need sensible discussion and proper engagement on Europe from this Government for the benefit of Britain and of Europe. On these Benches, we all hope that the posture on Europe that the Prime Minister tried to strike last week will be a singular folly rather than a sustained strategy. Once is more than enough. The parties opposite cannot heal their divisions on Europe, but no one will be convinced by their attempts to camouflage them. Distraction is not a strategy; proper engagement is. We look to the Government in future to pursue it.

Legislation: Pre-legislative Scrutiny

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is no bar to Joint Committees of both Houses being involved in pre-legislative scrutiny. We have already proposed that, this Session, there should be a Joint Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny when a draft Bill is published on the future of your Lordships’ House. Whether there should be a formalised structure of a Joint Liaison Committee is another matter altogether, and one that I am certainly prepared to consider.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that it is especially important that constitutional Bills have pre-legislative scrutiny? I recognise the difficulties he cited about it being early in this Parliament, but might he not regret the fact that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill came so early in this Parliament? That is a Bill that should have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. May I also suggest to him that the Public Bodies Bill should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny? There has been little or no consultation on it but it will affect millions of our citizens.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not agree with either the general premise of the noble Baroness’s argument or the specific examples. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill was published on 22 July and the Committee stage in another place did not begin until October. So there was plenty of time, albeit there was a Summer Recess, for it to be examined.

Privileges and Conduct Committee: Fourth Report

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the Chairman of Committees. As the noble Lord said, we find ourselves on an extremely difficult and sad day for this House. The allegations made against the three Members of this House were serious, and the findings of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct and the Committee for Privileges and Conduct are serious. Their recommendations and the reports speak for themselves.

I join the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, in expressing gratitude to the members of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for the thoroughness with which they conducted their investigations. I should also like to express my thanks to the Clerks of the House for the exemplary service given to the sub-committee and to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct.

As a member of the Privileges and Conduct Committee, I believe that all three Peers concerned fell short of the standard of conduct that the House and the public are entitled to expect, and we must as a House act decisively. The public expect us to react with firmness and unity to demonstrate our abhorrence at wrongdoing.

The one light in this sorry situation is that the House has already taken decisive action to reform an outdated system of expenses. As from the start of October, we introduced a new transparent system of daily allowance based on attendance. I firmly hope that, as a result, this will be the last time that we as a House find ourselves in this position.

The committee’s findings are disturbing and the conclusions reached are grave, but they are, in my judgment, fair and just. I commend the reports to the House and hope that noble Lords on all sides will join me in supporting the Motions before us.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, support the Motions. These are serious matters—serious for the Members involved, serious for this House and serious for Parliament, politics and the public beyond. We should not forget either that a number of parliamentarians, including two Members of your Lordships' House, are currently facing criminal charges to be tried in court on similar serious matters. But important though the matters before us today unquestionably are, it is important to remember that these are matters that relate to a different moment. When allegations on a number of issues were first made last year against Members of your Lordships' House, we were, in retrospect, in a poor position, our machinery outdated, our procedures similarly so, and our systems not suited to modern scrutiny.

As has been said, on these issues we have come a long way. No system is ever perfect. Any system or procedure is of course capable of improvement. We must not be complacent, but at the same time we now have a new procedure for making complaints, a new system for considering complaints, a new code of conduct against which complaints can be considered, and a new system of financial support for Members of this House. All of that has been reviewed, considered, examined and adopted within a relatively short space of time. Perhaps it was not at the speed which some outside this House would have wanted, but we have done it and what we now have—what this House has itself brought into play—is a whole range of new machinery and new procedures. Getting to this point has not been easy, but whatever we have been able to do has been right.

Today is again another day which is not easy or comfortable for anyone in your Lordships’ House. I feel great sadness. But I believe that the committee has come to the right conclusions on the cases before us and on the report from the sub-committee, and the House should support the Motions before us. The sub-committee did indeed face a very difficult task in dealing with the matters before it, and I, too, thank the members of the sub-committee and their staff for their work. At the same time, however, I believe that the main committee’s judgments in relation to the sub-committee’s report, including where it has diverged from the sub-committee’s recommendations, are right. I believe that the language of the sub-committee’s reports was in part misplaced. I believe that its inclusion of untested hearsay evidence was incorrect and that the penalties proposed by the sub-committee were not appropriate.

As a member of the full committee, I believe that we are right to make the recommendations we are putting before the House today. I welcome especially the proposal for the new Commissioner for Standards to examine issues relating to process that have arisen in the course of bringing the committee’s report before your Lordships’ House and, in particular, to addressing the question of the means by which all relevant evidence can be taken into account in our procedures. That shows that we are ready to examine, and examine continually if necessary, our procedures to make sure that they work and continue to work and to ensure that they are just. This is the right way forward for this House.

On the explicit sanctions before this House today, some may suggest that we were wrong, for instance, to alter the penalties proposed by the sub-committee, but I do not believe that we were wrong to do so. I believe that the approach taken by the full committee is the right one. The committee has judged that the three Members of your Lordships’ House did wrong and we are proposing stringent penalties in response. Just as last year when we took the decision to suspend members of your Lordships’ House for the first time since the age of Cromwell, so today we are proposing that we impose penalties of a severity never seen before in either House of Parliament. That is a tough action to take and a tough action for Members of this House to bear. Although they did wrong, as the report before you correctly concludes, I do not believe that this House will not feel sympathy for the Members involved. I know that I do. However, being aware of their difficulties and indeed, sympathising with them as colleagues in your Lordships’ House, should not for a moment pull us away from our responsibilities. We have a duty to this House, the Members of this House, to Parliament and to politics as a whole to right the wrongs where we find them and to take action as necessary to put our House in order. I have no doubt that this House will do so today.

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, this is a most uncomfortable and disagreeable business, but one from which this House must not, indeed cannot, shirk. I add my thanks on behalf of the Cross Benches to all officials and Peers alike who have been involved in bringing these reports to your Lordships’ House.

Adherence to the code of conduct is a weighty personal responsibility. We in the Privileges and Conduct Committee have been obliged to judge our colleagues—a task that all of us would have preferred to avoid. However, the cases before us affect us all in many different ways. We are undoubtedly tainted by evidence of wrongdoing. The reputation of the House is at stake, which in turn affects the work that we do. The press, grossly duplicitous as it has been in some methods of investigation, has allowed—encouraged, even—the wider public to perceive this House and its work as redundant at best and unworthy of public funds at worst.

We have to face these charges. We must acknowledge and never underestimate how we are now regarded; and we have to do something to redress the balance. Much has been achieved in recent months but part of the long journey back is how we respond to the report of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct before us today and the evidence contained therein. In arriving at our conclusions, the committee relied almost entirely on the evidence directly gained by the sub-committee’s, and our own, questioning, and not on press reports. Our findings uphold the sub-committee’s main conclusions with some adjustments to the recommended sanctions. In particular, we found that any acceptable or natural meaning of “principal” or “main” residence did not and could not apply in these cases no matter how generously the criteria are interpreted.

Distasteful as it is, none of us here can ignore such evidence painstakingly developed by the sub-committee on noble Lords’ conduct, nor can we by our decisions minimise the culpability or impact. To do so would be to deal with these cases less robustly than warranted and, in effect, pull up the drawbridge and refuse to take account of public anger. We have chosen to invoke serious sanctions which I believe are entirely justified by the sub-committee’s report. In so doing, the intention is not only to apply standards that prevail in the world beyond this House but to strengthen the code of conduct and to help restore public confidence in this House.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for arriving slightly late for the Statement. I would not wish to have shown any disrespect to the House.

I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the other place and join him in paying tribute to the men and women of our Armed Forces. I also pay tribute to their families, who sustain their loved ones as they prepare for, serve on and recover from operational service. We must always ensure that their interests are protected.

I thank the Leader of the House, and through him the Prime Minister and the Government, for advance notice of his Statement—advance notice in today’s papers, in yesterday’s papers, in Sunday’s papers and in Saturday’s papers. It almost did not matter that we in the Opposition got actual advance notice of the Prime Minister’s Statement a full 10 minutes before he made it. However, I must record my thanks to the Secretary of State for Defence for his oral briefing. I am extremely grateful. I have to say to the Leader that, as someone who takes Parliament seriously, I think that the process of announcement of this review and the way in which it has come out have been shambolic. I hope that the Government will learn lessons from this.

On issues of national defence, we will always seek to be constructive. I believe that the Government approach the challenge of national defence as all Governments have done—with the right intentions—and it does neither our politics nor our armed services any good to imply anything different. The cuts announced today clearly represent a significant reduction, but what matters is not only the amount we spend but what the spending does to help ensure the defence and security of our country. That is what I want to focus on today.

First, I remind the Leader of the House of the concern expressed by the Defence Secretary in the leaked letter to the Prime Minister, that,

“this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR (Strategic Defence and Security Review)”.

He will know very well that the Defence Secretary is not alone in expressing this concern. It was shared by the Select Committee in the other place and, I believe, by many Members of this House, including noble and gallant Members. I look forward to hearing from some of them this afternoon, because I share those concerns. Is it not instructive that the strategic defence review in 1998 was carried out over a much longer timescale, with much greater consultation and in-depth study? Can the Leader of the House respond to the widespread perception that this review was driven by the short-term cuts in tomorrow's spending review and that it would have been better to have a longer-term strategic defence review?

I ask the Leader of the House about the most immediate and pressing issue: Afghanistan. I reiterate that we support the mission in Afghanistan and will work in a bipartisan way with the Government to both stabilise the country and bring our troops home safely. Have the Government received specific assurances from the Chief of the Defence Staff that no decision announced today will undermine or disadvantage in any way our military operations there?

I also raise the issue of extra helicopters, which those on the Benches opposite highlighted repeatedly in the previous Parliament. Today, the Government are, I believe, announcing a cut in the number of additional helicopters. Why have the Government done that?

I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that a key part of preparing for the challenges of the future is the targeting of limited national resources at the most pressing threats. Yesterday's national security strategy identified terrorism as a tier-1 threat. Given that today's announcement forms only a partial response, can he assure the House that nothing announced today or tomorrow in the changes to the Home Office budget will undermine or weaken our ability to counter terrorism in all its forms?

On the issue of preparing our Armed Forces for future challenges, we agree that there are some opportunities to make savings in capabilities that were better suited to the challenges of the Cold War, such as in the number of Challenger tanks and heavy artillery, but I seek reassurance from the Government that they are content that the decisions made today do not compromise our ability to support current operations and defend our interests around the world. In particular, what does the capability gap arising from the scrapping of our Harriers and the withdrawal of “Ark Royal” mean for our force projection, which was made much of in the national security strategy, and our ability to defend our overseas territories? In that context, can the noble Lord also reassure the House that it really is the case that the best strategic decision for the next decade is for Britain to have aircraft carriers without aircraft? I heard what the noble Lord said about aircraft carriers, and I am sure that some of my noble friends will want to set the record straight.

I ask the Leader of the House about two things that he did not mention in repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. Can he confirm what he did not tell your Lordships' House: that page 19 of the review sets out a one-third reduction in the number of troops that Britain can deploy on both a short-term and an enduring basis? Will he take this opportunity to respond to the huge disappointment that there will be in south Wales following the decision announced in a Written Ministerial Statement in relation to the defence training college at St Athan, which the Prime Minister personally promised would go ahead, and confirm that, notwithstanding that action, St Athan will still have a future as a training facility for our services?

There will be concerns that this review has failed to address strategically the important questions about the future of our nuclear deterrent. I believe that there is widespread agreement in this House on supporting the retention of a nuclear deterrent alongside progress in the multilateral disarmament talks. I must tell the Leader of the House that there will be concern that the Government have announced a whole range of decisions on Trident, despite telling us that it was not part of the strategic defence review. Will he confirm that by choosing delay, the Government have created an unfunded spending commitment in the defence budget in the next Parliament—precisely the problem that the Prime Minister told us he wants to get away from in procurement?

We will help the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and their Government as they seek to do what is best for our country's security. But we on this side of the House do not have to tell him that many people will believe that this review is a profound missed opportunity. This is a spending review dressed up as a defence review—shambolically conducted, hastily prepared and not credible as a strategic blueprint for our future defence needs. On this side of the House we will support the Government where we can, but we will also give the Government's strategy serious scrutiny and, where necessary and appropriate, we will subject it to the principled and responsible opposition that it deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

It is, frankly, rich for noble Lords opposite to jeer about reading press briefings given not by members of the Government but by others. You only have to read the memoirs written by former distinguished Secretaries of State from the former Labour Government to understand just how much backbiting there was in the Government of whom the noble Baroness was a member.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

That is a very interesting point but it has no bearing on the questions that I asked the noble Lord. I would say to him that one of the most important strategies on the security of this country was published just yesterday, but the Government did not grace this Chamber with their presence so that we could hold them accountable. However, we did hear the Home Secretary on the “Today” programme, and we were fully briefed about it in the press.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I would not have mentioned leaks if the noble Baroness had not spent the first two minutes of her reply asking me questions on them.

As for the two reviews that we have published, yesterday we published the national security strategy, which I commend to your Lordships. It pointed the way for today's announcement on the strategic defence and security review, and the entire purpose was for the Prime Minister to make a comprehensive Statement today. Again I accuse noble Lords opposite. They never did a comprehensive review combining the strategic overview and the defence strategy in a single document. If they had done so in the round then we would not have been left in the mess that we now have.

The noble Baroness asks why we did it so quickly. I say to her: why did they take so long to repeat the exercise that they did in 1998? It was 12 years. Maybe they were concentrating on it but never came to a conclusion. This Government were pushed into action because of the appalling inheritance—the legacy—that we have discovered: the £38 billion overspend that will have to be paid for over the course of the next few years.

On an area which I think the noble Baroness and I will agree on—our role in Afghanistan—I can confirm that nothing in today’s announcement will have an impact on our efforts in Afghanistan. We believe that the helicopters that we have, building on the announcements that the previous Government made, are enough, and we have announced today that we will buy 12 additional heavy-lift Chinook helicopters which in the long term will make a substantial difference.

On the future of St Athan, as announced by the Secretary of State for Defence this morning, the defence training rationalisation programme has, regrettably, been terminated. However, given the significant investment in the area, St Athan remains ideally placed as a future site for defence training.

Let me turn to the capability gap, as it is called, on the carrier strike force. We may well not have been driven to the decisions that we have made about this if we had not found things as they were when we came into government in May 2010. We believe that there is a military case for a carrier strike capability, but not one that relies on the differently configured Joint Strike Fighters. That is why we have decided to invest even more money into making sure that there is a “cat and trap” capability on one of these aircraft carriers. That means that we will be able to co-operate with our allies in NATO and the EU and with the French and the Americans, who will be able to use our platform. In the short term, we believe that we have the overflying rights and the land-based runways to be able to continue to maintain air cover. In the long term, of course, none of us knows whether that will be possible: hence the reason why we have maintained the carrier programme.

House of Lords: Allowances

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, suggests will never arise.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I strongly support the Government’s resolutions and the House Committee’s report. The House Committee report puts forward changes to the system of financial support for Members of your Lordships’ House, based on proposals from the Leader of the House. The report rightly describes them as important changes. I agree with these proposed changes. I also agree that the changes proposed by the ad hoc group set up by your Lordships’ House and chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, form a marked move away from the current system of financial support for Members of this House.

The report of the ad hoc group sets out in some detail how we have got to this point. The background to the issues is also summarised in the report from the House Committee, so there is no need for me to repeat that history. This has been a long and complicated matter, and I add my thanks to all those involved who have worked so hard to get to the point where what is on the Order Paper today is, I believe, the right way forward.

First and foremost, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and all the other Members of the House who served on the ad hoc group that was appointed by the House to examine these issues in the wake of the report from the Senior Salaries Review Body.

I also pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the decisive action that he has taken in bringing forward the alternative proposal, set out in the Wakeham report, that forms the resolution and the report before the House today. I know from my time as Leader of the House, and in Government, that these are very difficult issues to address, and I believe that the noble Lord has performed a considerable service for this House and its Members in bringing forward the proposals that are before us today.

In considering these proposals, we need to bear in mind two fundamental points: the nature of this House, and its cost. On the first point, I can do no better than to quote from the introduction to the report of the ad hoc group:

“Membership of this House is not an office nor is it an employment. From their appointment to the House, Members are unsalaried volunteers and they offer their experience, time and commitment freely because of a strong sense of duty and public service. The fact that the House of Lords is an unsalaried House is fundamental to its nature and character; to how and what it does as a House, and to the issue of financial support to enable Members to carry out their Parliamentary duties and to discharge their Parliamentary responsibilities”.

That is exactly right.

The second point concerns the cost of this House. The ad hoc group says that the cost of your Lordships’ House is “relatively low”. Again, that is exactly right. The report points out that not only are the total costs of this House currently less than one-third of the costs of the House of Commons but the cost of the current expenses scheme for Members of this House is, at around £19 million, just 15 per cent of the running costs of this House and a fraction of the comparable cost of £150 million in the Commons. An unsalaried House, a low-cost House—that is where we are.

We all accept that we are in a time of considerable economic difficulty. We may well—indeed, we do—have serious political disagreements with the coalition Government about how best to resolve these matters, but all sides accept that we are in straitened economic times. I welcome, therefore, the efforts made by the SSRB, the Wakeham group and the Leader of the House to reform the old system of expenses in your Lordships’ House, which, as the ad hoc group says,

“grew up in piecemeal fashion over time”,

while keeping costs under control.

Both the full debate in the Chamber on 14 December last year and the responses of Members detailed in the ad hoc group’s report made it clear that many Members of your Lordships’ House had real reservations about the SSRB’s proposals. Many believed that what the SSRB proposed was unnecessarily complicated, cumbersome and bureaucratic. The Wakeham group sought to deal with those issues, but at the same time recognised that the context for them had changed—first, because of the proposals made in March this year by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for changes to the system of allowances in the House of Commons, and secondly because of the changed political context following the outcome of the general election, particularly the proposals from the coalition Government for further reform of your Lordships’ House.

Accordingly, the ad hoc group recognised that the emergence of an alternative proposal would be worth consideration, reducing the level of support currently set aside for overnight accommodation and combining it with the daily allowance as a single allowance claimable by all Members. That is the essence of the proposal before us today in the report from the House Committee and in the Motion from the Leader of the House. As the ad hoc group itself says:

“If this change were to be made, it would be simple, easy to implement, easy to administer and easy to explain to the public”.

I agree.

I am of course aware that not everyone in the House agrees, including on my own Benches. I know that there are real concerns about equity, about the impact on Members travelling to attend the House from far distances and about other points. I understand those concerns; I respect those who feel them, and who either have voiced them to me privately or within our political group or may voice them in the Chamber today. But no system of financial support is perfect. All systems of financial support have to strike a balance between comprehensiveness and simplicity. I believe that the package in front of the House gets that balance right.

House of Lords: Working Practices

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, this is an important debate for this House and for the Members of this House. It is, too, I believe, an important debate beyond this House, because how this House works and how it does its job, helps to set how the House carries out its important role in our politics, in our legislative process and in our constitutional arrangements. So this is a very welcome debate. I welcome as well the announcement by the Leader of the House to set up a Leader’s Group to review the working practices of the House. That is absolutely the right thing to do, although, like the noble Lord, I recognise that our procedures have evolved over the past few years.

To some, a review of working practices might sound rather dry and boring. But this is not just about more efficient and effective practices. It is about the health of our political system. It is about good governance. It is about our working relationship with the other place and our ability better to engage with the public. It is about building on the value of our House.

I believe that the review has assumed greater importance since the formation of the coalition Government. Why is that? It is because the fundamental role of this House as a revising Chamber has been changed by the new arithmetic. Evidence from the Constitution Unit at University College London in a paper by Meg Russell and Maria Sciara entitled, The Policy Impact of Defeats in the House of Lords, shows that,

“many Lords defeats are substantially accepted”,

and that,

“furthermore, many of these are on key policy issues”.

They show that in four cases out of 10, Lords amendments were accepted after defeats in the Lobbies and, of course, many more were accepted without a vote. The Leader of the House informed us that more than 80 amendments were carried in the previous two Sessions of Parliament. That was right and proper, although sometimes painful for the Government. With the coalition Government, this situation is bound to change, and I think it has changed already, with a profound impact on the constitutional role of this House. The new voting pattern in this House of the new politics is putting into question the traditional role of this House as a revising Chamber. If the Government have a permanent inbuilt majority, the prospects of this House being able to carry out that role are limited. This is not sour grapes. We know we lost the election and we know that that had consequences, but it is the new reality of the House. I hope that the Leader’s Group will keep this in mind as it reviews our procedures.

I pay tribute to the staff in the Library for their excellent notes for today’s debate. I pay tribute as well to all those who have doggedly pursued these issues over many years, and especially to those who have been members of the various more recent groups, including the group of Labour Members chaired by my noble friend Lord Grocott.

My contribution today will be brief. There are so many suggestions on the table for the Leader’s Group to consider. I hope that, in its work, the group will be able to take soundings from all Members of this House who wish to make their views known. In debates such as these it tends to be the aficionados who speak and make very fine contributions to the debate, but there are many others who have clear views on these issues. In our debate in February on the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, noted that we have increasingly refined our views and increasingly a consensus has emerged that this matter is coming to a point where action must be taken. I agree with the noble Lord, but for real ownership of any changes—which of course must be agreed by the whole House—all those Members who wish to make their views known should be able to do so. To be clear, I want to see change, but I also subscribe to the process of evolution, not revolution.

It is clear that one of the recurrent themes since the Leader’s Group established in 2001 by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn is the desire for pre-legislative scrutiny. That group suggested that virtually all Bills should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, but it was later agreed that while the growth in pre-legislative scrutiny was welcome, the aspiration that it should include virtually all Bills was unrealistic. That is obviously a matter for the new Leader’s Group, not for debate today, but I would suggest that we have not quite got the balance right. Pre-legislative scrutiny is an opportunity to improve draft legislation, to ensure that it better meets the needs for which it was designed, and to engage with experts and members of the public who are interested in the subject in question. There was more and more pre-legislative scrutiny under the previous Government, but the demands of government often meant that not enough time was built into the legislative timetable. We need to do better. All Governments should be in favour of enhanced pre-legislative scrutiny. It is one small but very important way of rebuilding trust in our political system.

In a similar vein, there have been demands over the past years for post-legislative scrutiny. Like many other noble Lords who have spoken on this in the past, I believe that the House is particularly well suited to this scrutiny. We have the expertise, we have the time, and it would be an opportunity to identify good practice in terms of process and content. One suggestion that has been made by my noble friend Lord Puttnam is that the recent Digital Economy Act 2010 should, in due course, be subject to post-legislative scrutiny. I believe that that is an excellent suggestion.

Should pre- and post-legislative scrutiny be undertaken only by Joint Committees of both Houses or is it something that on occasion the Lords could do alone? Again, that is a matter for the new group. However, having noted in the previous debates the demand for a plethora of Joint Committees, I suspect that in practical terms we might have to consider some Lords committees. We certainly have capacity in terms of members with our ever-growing numbers, but I recognise that it would mean extra demands on the Clerks and on financial and spatial resources. At a time of financial constraint, it is not easy to make a case for extra resources, but we are talking about enhancing our democracy.

Pre-legislative scrutiny takes time and, having recently had the privilege of both leading your Lordships’ House and being a Member of the Government, I am acutely aware of the need to take the timing of business into account. Some new procedures would take preparation time but would not require additional time on the Floor of the House; for example, the flagging of clauses when a Bill passes from the Commons to the Lords in order to identify clauses not already debated. I know this is more complex than at first it would seem, but it is the right way forward if possible. Other new procedures could save time in the Chamber, as the noble Lord said, by dealing with Statements so that we are not merely repeating what has been said in the other place.

In the previous debate, several noble Lords raised the issue of cross-cutting areas of public policy which are never properly addressed or scrutinised because the government machinery does not exist. This may well be something that we in the Lords should do through the adaptation of our committee system. I realise that the House has recently agreed the proposals of the Liaison Committee in relation to committees during this Parliament, but I suggest that, following the decisions taken on the basis of the recommendations of the Leader’s Group, the Liaison Committee might re-convene with new criteria.

The Leader’s Group is also a timely initiative because it will enable us to respond to the impact of changes made in the other place as a result of the Wright Committee. The way in which one House considers legislation and wider issues is bound to have an impact on the other. It is important that we work together as an effective Parliament but we should also maintain the differences and distinctions of our House—not for the sake of difference but because the two Houses should complement, not replicate, each other.

There is much more that I could say but now that we have a process with the establishment of the Leader’s Group, I think it more appropriate that I make my views known to that group. I do not envy the group in its task of prioritisation but, undoubtedly, it has an important task before it. This House has made great strides forward over the recent period, with a new code of conduct, a standards commissioner and, I hope shortly, new arrangements for the financial support of Members of your Lordships’ House. The work of the group announced today will add to that progress. I look forward to that work starting and producing proposals for this House to consider.

Intelligence and Security Services: Treatment of Detainees

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement given by the Prime Minister in the other place and I am grateful to the Government for early sight of it. I join the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all those soldiers whom he mentioned at the start of the Statement and wholly endorse his point about the sacrifices made on our behalf.

The use of torture is morally abhorrent and has no place in this country or any civilised society. It is against the law in our country. Indeed, it is one of only two offences that can be brought to court in this country no matter where in the world the offence was committed. It is a grave crime against humanity and its prohibition is embodied in international law. There must be no hiding place for those who practise it and no excuse for those who turn a blind eye to it. The United Kingdom should always be at the forefront of international efforts to detect and expose torture and bring those responsible for it to justice. To play our part in leading the world, we must lead by example.

I note that there was only the merest mention in the Statement repeated by the Leader of the House of the USA’s detention centre at Guantanamo Bay. I ask the Leader of the House to join us in our condemnation of the US Guantanamo detention centre. It is clearly in breach of the law, which is why it is not on the US mainland and why we make great efforts to secure the release of British nationals and British residents from Guantanamo. We are the only country that has successfully brought back all our citizens. Having secured the release of all our citizens and all but one of our residents, we should like to know whether the Government are continuing our efforts to bring back the final remaining British resident who is still detained.

Can I confirm with the Leader of the House that anyone who takes part in or aids or abets torture is criminally liable and must be accountable for their responsibility to the criminal court? There is of course a criminal investigation under way, which was referred to the police by the then Attorney-General, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland of Asthal. Will he confirm that this investigation will proceed to its conclusion independently and unimpeded?

I agree with the Leader of the House that it is right that we have proper accountability for our security services and I reaffirm our support for the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I also welcome his appointment of the right honourable Member for Kensington in the other place to chair the committee. He will, I know, ensure that the ISC plays its part in the strong framework of accountability that includes accountability to Ministers, the heads of the agencies, the two intelligence service commissioners, both retired High Court judges, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to whom I pay tribute, and, of course, the courts.

I also welcome the publication today of consolidated guidance for intelligence officers and the military on the questioning of suspects held overseas. I regret the insinuation that we failed to publish the guidance when in government. As the Leader well knows, the process of publication was something to which we on this side of the House were committed in government and it was under way. We are pleased that it has been completed with publication today.

I assure the noble Lord that we support the establishment of an administrative inquiry, led by Sir Peter Gibson, which he has announced to the House today. In order that the security services can proceed with their important work to protect this country with all inquiries concluded, can the noble Lord say how long he expects the inquiry to take from when it starts work? Will he confirm that concluding the question of criminal responsibility will take precedence and that the administrative inquiry will start only when the criminal investigation and any proceedings thereafter are concluded?

As the Leader said, a number of cases are under way in the civil courts where former detainees are taking action. Can he clarify more specifically the effect that the administrative inquiry will have on these cases? Will they be superseded by the inquiry? Will this need the consent of the plaintiffs and any future plaintiffs, or will the cases run alongside the inquiry?

Will the Leader of the House acknowledge the importance of the Human Rights Act, which enshrines in British law the European Convention on Human Rights and the protections afforded by Article 3? Article 3 states:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

Will he affirm his and his Government’s support for the Human Rights Act, which ensures that, when there is a breach of human rights, the victim can take action in our courts rather than spending up to seven years taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg? Can he reaffirm that it is never right for us to deport from this country those who would face torture in their home country? I also invite the Leader to reaffirm the UK’s support for the work of the United Nations to end torture, including the convention against torture and the 2002 optional protocol, which establishes an international system of inspections for places of detention.

On the proposed new policy framework for national security and justice, as the Leader says, we await the judgment of the Supreme Court, and we shall examine carefully the proposals that the Government will bring forward in their Green Paper next year.

Finally, I endorse the noble Lord’s support for the difficult and often dangerous work of our security services. The whole country, including all sides of your Lordships’ House, has reason to be grateful to officers from all branches of the intelligence services for the fearless work that they do across the world to keep this country safe.

House of Lords Reform

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for opening today’s debate with his characteristic élan and his evident relish for reform. We all marvel at the newfound determination of the Conservative element of the coalition Government to ensure that, very suddenly, a third-term issue should become an imperative. But whatever their reasons—and I for one am utterly convinced that the Conservative Benches opposite are as natural supporters of reform of your Lordships' House as they are the natural party of government—we can all heartily welcome the Conservative Party to the ranks of reformers.

The noble Lord the Leader of the House is the very model of the radical revolutionary, and from his speech on this subject to the House today, no one can see him in anything other than that role in the future. While the judgment of these Benches is that the constitutional change on which the coalition is so focused means rather less to people’s lives than the measures put forward in the coalition’s Conservative Budget, I look forward to today’s debate, and I thank the Government for providing the House with the opportunity of debating these issues once again.

This House is familiar with almost every aspect of the issues around the question of Lords reform. The department store John Lewis makes the claim that it is never knowingly undersold. On the question of reform of the House of Lords, I think that we in this House can claim that it is never knowingly underdebated.

However, we have seen in this long-running debate a new move, as mentioned by the Leader of the House: the decision by the coalition Government to form a cross-party committee, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, on further reform of the House, with the explicit aim of bringing forward a Bill on reform for consideration by both Houses. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the information that he has provided about the committee’s work so far. I would have liked a more open and transparent way of working, but I am told that because the committee is a Cabinet committee, this is not possible. However, I would ask the Leader of the House for an undertaking that he will, as Leader not only of the whole House but of the Government in this House, continue to keep Members of the House informed about the work of the committee as it progresses.

We may not always have to hand a debate on the future of your Lordships' House to provide the means for him to do so, but I would urge the Leader to consider the best means by which all Members of this House can be kept up to date about the committee’s work. It is directly relevant to the future of this House and of the Members of this House. While many beyond this Chamber have a legitimate interest in this House and what will happen to it, I would argue that the Members of this House unquestionably have such an interest and it is right and proper for the Government to keep the Members informed.

Some—including, I acknowledge, some in my party—have questioned whether it is appropriate for Labour spokespeople, including me, to be members of this committee, taking part in its deliberations. I understand those concerns. However, I think that in this case it is right for me, as Leader of the Opposition in this House, and for two other members of the current shadow Cabinet to take part. As we showed in government when, at the instigation of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, we established the cross-party talks which led directly to our last White Paper on these matters, there is a genuine cross-party interest in such a major constitutional change as further reform of your Lordships' House. We also as a political party should be involved in these discussions inside the tent, if I may put it like that. Reform of your Lordships' House is of course a matter of party politics, but reform of your Lordships' House is also such an important matter for the constitution of our country that it is above party politics too.

I would have preferred—as clearly would have others—the Cross Benches to be represented on the committee. I think it is wrong that they are not. However, our being members of this committee does not bind us to it. We are the Opposition, not the Government. We have joined a committee, we have not joined the coalition. We will see what conclusions the committee comes up with. We have agreed nothing in advance. As the Deputy Prime Minister told us about the approach to these discussions, nothing is agreed until it is all agreed. There will be no accretion of agreement as we move through the process. In particular, we on this side of the House were committed in our manifesto to put the issue of further reform of your Lordships House to the people of this country. To us, that commitment is real and it is important.

This House plays a vital part in the politics and constitution of our country. Whatever the temporary impact on the balance of this House caused by the forming of the coalition Government, this House plays a vital role as a revising Chamber as well as having a central function as a unique means of national debate. It is the principal mechanism within the legislative process by which the Government of the day are held to account and can be asked to reflect and reconsider. That role is necessary whatever political party is in power. It is no less necessary with a coalition Government in power. Indeed, we on this side of the House would argue that it is even more necessary in such circumstances. I take this opportunity entirely to refute the suggestion that the views of this House were not heard by the Government over the past 13 years. They were constantly heard around the Cabinet table.

This House plays a key part in our constitutional arrangements. It is one of the main checks and balances in our constitution and it is right that it should remain so. Our manifesto commitment to a referendum reflects that. It shows that we believe that, because of the importance of the role of your Lordships’ House in both our politics and our constitution, it is right that any fundamental change to this House should be put to the people of this country for their decision.

According to the agreement of the coalition Government, the parties opposite are committed to a referendum on voting reform, specifically on the introduction of the alternative vote system for the election of Members of the House of Commons. However, because of the fundamental instability at the heart of the coalition Government, the two parties opposite are not committed to campaigning for the same goal in any such referendum. That and other deep fissures in the coalition, although significant, are matters for another day. What is important today is that, if the issue of voting reform is significant enough to merit the country’s consideration in a referendum, so, too, is further fundamental reform of your Lordships’ House. I made that point at the first meeting of the Cabinet committee chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and I shall continue to hold to it as the process of the committee moves on.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I remind the noble Baroness that the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which reformed the composition of this House by removing from its Benches the Law Lords, was not put to a referendum. Has she any precedent for what she suggests?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I acknowledge that there was no referendum on that occasion, but I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that making this House an elected House would be a fundamental change in our constitution.

[Lord Goodlad]

If, as we consider legislation, the party opposite presses for a referendum on the future of the House, will the noble Baroness take into account the recommendations of the Electoral Commission on compulsory voting, which applies in many other countries, so that that is one of the considerations that come before us?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I could not at this juncture speak for my party on that issue, but personally I am a firm supporter of compulsory voting. However, that is my personal view.

On other occasions, my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington, a distinguished former Leader of the House, has asked what the point is of the committee of which I am now a member. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will raise a pertinent issue in his Question on 5 July and, with typical shrewdness and incisiveness, my noble friend Lord Richard has made the point that, if the committee is to consider fully the outstanding issues of Lords reform, it is unlikely to be able to produce a Bill by the end of the year.

[Lord Higgins]

Will the noble Baroness clarify whether, in her understanding, this will be a government draft Bill, or will it be agreed to by the Opposition as well? More particularly, is it not rather strange to say that we will have a draft Bill before we have taken the decision on whether we want a partially or wholly elected House? Surely that would be a complete waste of time. The vote on the main point of principle ought to take place first, not during consideration of a draft Bill that has been stitched up by the Front Benches.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, as I mentioned, this is a government committee on which the Government have invited members of the Opposition to sit. That does not mean to say that, at the conclusion of the committee’s work, the opposition party will fully sign up to it. The noble Lord makes a powerful case in relation to a referendum, but whenever the referendum takes place—

[Lord Higgins]

My point was not about a referendum; I was asking whether the cart is now being put before the horse—that is, should we not vote first on whether to have a wholly or partially elected House before debating the establishment of a committee which assumes that that is going to be the case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, with respect, the setting up of the committee and the process that is being followed on when or whether or not there should be various votes are matters for the Government. I am the Leader of the Opposition.

[Lord Haskel]

Would it be open to members of the committee to put in a minority report?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

Indeed it would, should that be necessary. Obviously, these are still very early days. This committee has met once, and we just have to wait to see what happens within the process. However, I assure my noble friend and other noble friends that I will keep them as fully informed as possible.

I return to the question of what the committee is for. Many noble Lords around the House have suggested that it will not be possible for such a committee to produce a Bill by the end of the year. However, I believe that there is a huge impetus on the part of the coalition Government and that, for three reasons, it will be possible for the committee to produce a Bill by the end of the year. The first reason is political impetus. On behalf of the coalition, the Deputy Prime Minister is making it clear that he wants and intends to maintain the political momentum implied by the formation of the coalition, including on Lords reform, and of course he has every right to do so.

The second reason is political preparation. Perhaps against all the odds, the cross-party group steered through to conclusion by my right honourable friend the Member for Blackburn got further and made more progress than might have been imagined. Therefore, the new committee is meeting against a background of a high degree of political consensus and of a considerable amount of work done.

The third reason is Bill preparation. The length of the history of further reform of your Lordships’ House means that a number of pieces of draft legislation have, from time to time, been prepared by the Government of the day. I suggest that there is much stuff in the Cabinet Office’s cupboards, so taking a Bill off the shelf, as it were, and adjusting it is far from impossible.

Therefore, to answer the question posed by various noble Lords, I think that it is possible to produce a Bill by the end of this year, but the crucial issue is the pre-legislative scrutiny which the Bill must then receive.

It is clear from what the Leader of the House has said that Lords reform will not be part of what the Deputy Prime Minister has talked about in quite grandiose terms—a new great reforming Act to rival the Great Reform Act of 1832.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

I apologise for interrupting but exactly the same problem is raised by the intervention of my noble friend and the noble Baroness’s reply. We come again to the question of due process, which must be dealt with long before a Joint Committee is in place to scrutinise the Bill. At a very early stage, the due process of this committee is being challenged.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I well understand the concern being expressed around the Chamber about due process, but quite frankly, as Leader of the Opposition, I am not responsible for that due process. This is a matter for the Government and noble Lords should continue to put their questions to them.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My noble friend appears to agree that the Government have made a crashing error of judgment in excluding the Cross-Bench Peers, who clearly have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the draft Bill. Will my noble friend therefore not adopt a grandmotherly attitude, listen to the Cross-Benchers herself and be prepared to put forward their view, as they are excluded from the committee?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, it would give me great pleasure to listen to the Cross-Benchers and to put forward their views in the committee. I must rapidly move on and come to a conclusion.

From everything that has been said, it is clear that this is going to be a separate Bill and not part of a great reforming Bill. However, can the Leader of the House confirm that its separation will not mean that it will be considered in isolation from issues such as voting systems? Would it really be sensible for the people of Scotland, for example, to be subjected to as many as four different voting systems, perhaps on one day?

In relation to pre-legislative scrutiny, can the Leader of the House state that a Joint Committee, which I welcome, will be given enough time to consider, in depth and in detail, all the complex issues involved in further substantial reform of the House? For example, can the Leader confirm that such a Joint Committee will fully take into account the stipulation of the last cross-party Joint Committee of both Houses, chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling, on the conventions of this House, that if substantial proposals on the reform of your Lordships' House are brought forward, then the issues considered by the Joint Committee will need to be examined again?

The powers and functions of this House are significant and merit careful consideration, which I hope they will be given. Can the Leader of the House also set out the coalition Government's attitude to the Bill covering a range of reforms of this House brought forward again by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood? I welcome the Leader’s announcement about a small group to look at people leaving the House.

I shall detain the House no longer, other than to say that, in this next period, we on these Benches will be holding the Government to account, both inside the Cabinet committee and outside it, on four key points—that the major issues of further reform of your Lordships' House, including the conventions of its relationship with the other place, are properly considered; that the process of pre-legislative scrutiny is full, thorough and sufficient for the nature of the issues involved; that due regard is given to and provided for any necessary transitional arrangements—I am glad that the grandfathering idea is mentioned in the coalition agreement; and that the issue of further substantial Lords reform is a matter for a referendum of the whole country.

We on this side of your Lordships' House, together with the Liberal Democrats on the Benches opposite, have long been in favour of reform. If, in becoming a member of the coalition, the Conservative Party, and not just its leadership, is now also in favour of reform, we in the reform group genuinely welcome that. History and experience might suggest otherwise, but we shall see. As the noble Lord himself suggested, we know that change is inevitable. As ever, however, the questions are: what kind of change is intended? What will be the rate of change? How will the change be managed? And, crucially, what is the change for? As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, “What will it achieve?”. Will it make our Parliament, our politics, our constitution and our country better? Those are real and important issues, and throughout this process we shall seek answers to these extremely important questions.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I was interested to hear the quotation of Abbé Sieyés. The only one I know is that he was asked at the end what he did during the French Revolution and he said, “I survived”. That is a good lesson for everyone in politics.

I was looking at the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I thought that he looked fit and happy and 10 years younger, and then I suddenly realised why. For many a day in the previous Parliament, when we sat over there on the Liberal Democrat Benches, we used to initiate debates on reforms of this Chamber, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, used to sit here, tense and flipping through his notes, waiting to reply. It is a lot more difficult on this side than it is on the other and I wish him good health.

I immediately take up the noble Lord’s point on grandfathering rights. If this excellent legislation will have his imprimatur on it, I shall certainly bring it to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister. On the matter of the voting record, as he knows well, the record for this Government so far is that we have lost every vote in this House.

This is going to be difficult. I know that if I am too firm, clear and decisive then noble Lords will be up on their feet and saying that I am bouncing the House, not consulting it, and they will ask where all this came from. If I say we are listening and will consult, noble Lords will say that it is all wishy-washy. I can assure the House that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I and indeed the Deputy Prime Minister are in listening mode. We are simply trying, with the best of intentions, to set out a road map for this House and for Parliament so that they can deal with an issue that some would say has bedevilled it for 100 years. Certainly those who have been around for the past 10 years have seen it being dealt with without much progress.

In 1909 the then Prime Minister, Mr Asquith, received the following assessment of prospects of reform of the House of Lords from his Parliamentary Private Secretary, Edwin Montagu. He wrote:

“The history of all former attempts at coming to close quarters with the House of Lords Question shows a record of disorder, dissipation of energy, of words and solemn exhortation, of individual rhetoric … without any definite scheme of action”.

In some ways, try as they did, that could be the description of the previous Government between the reforms of 1999 and the cascade of deathbed repentances which ended up in the CRAG Bill. We are desperately trying, perhaps in time for the 100th anniversary of the first passing of the Reform Act, to make some progress.

I want to make a correction. Noble Lords will know that the 1911 Act was passed on 10 August, and I said in an earlier debate that we all know why they managed to pass it then—their Lordships wanted to go off and slaughter grouse. Not at all, it turns out. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, immediately brought me his grandfather’s memoirs. His grandfather was the leader of the last-ditchers, and he explains in graphic terms that the reason why they failed to derail the 1911 Bill was that the bishops ratted. When the last-ditchers needed their votes, they were inexplicably absent. Those noble Lords who are relying on the bishops this time around, remember that precedent.

Quite seriously, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I know how much work he and Jack Straw put into attempts to make progress on this. That is one of the reasons why the Clegg committee is able to get off to a flying start; as the members will know, we are using quite a lot of that work. Some of the officials and experts have been on this topic for 10 years so they are not new to the issue, and the work that has been done, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, includes some drafting of parts of a Bill that was commissioned by Jack Straw. As I have said before, some of the building blocks are there.

Yesterday, when we were talking about the expenses regime, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, pointed out that this House has not been slow in bringing reforms forward. She said:

“In the space of less than a year we now have a stringent code of conduct, an active sub-committee on privileges and standards and greater financial transparency”.—[Official Report, 28/6/10; col. 1515.]

That is backed up by an officer of the House who is going to police those reforms. So we have carried reforms forward and we continue to do so.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. As I have said before, I sometimes think that we missed an enormous chance by not taking up the Wakeham recommendations; we would have been almost halfway through his transition period by now. That is a lesson sometimes in politics. I have said to the Deputy Prime Minister that he could well with profit read the Wakeham report as part of his reading on this subject.

I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Filkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, for their initiative on the other matter of trying to parallel the Wright committee’s report. There are things that we could and should be doing as we approach the issue of major reform.

Let me take head-on the structure of the committee. Lots of people have asked, “Why are the Cross-Benchers not on it?”. I put it quite bluntly to the Cross-Benchers: they can be one of two things. They can be the fourth political party in this House or they can be what they all take pride in—individuals who come as independents to put an independent view to this House. Their strength is their individuality, which makes them separate from the political parties but does not make it easy for them then to be on a committee made up of three political parties which, in their manifestos, have just taken a case to the country.

Having had the experience of the past 10 years—this is something that always happens with these debates in the House—I know that there are colleagues who couch their speeches in notes of surprise as though some of the issues that have been raised have never been put to them before; this is all a matter of shock, goodness gracious, we must start from first principles and it will take at least five years. But if you start in the first few weeks of the Parliament, you are then accused of rushing them. Then, if you leave it, as the previous Government did, to the last few weeks of the Parliament, you are told, “This can’t be done in the last few weeks of a Parliament”. I know Catch-22 when I see it.

We are trying to produce what we have not had in the last century—a Bill which we can focus on. All the issues can be considered. It was said that Cross-Benchers were not being consulted. I assure your Lordships that not only will the Hansard of this debate be put before the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and the other members of the Clegg committee, but so will a paper analysing the major themes that have come out of it. This is part of a consultation that we want. It is not matter of just going through the motions; it is a matter, at this stage, of having a committee of the willing to try to draw up a Bill to make progress. I have in my notes a line—it is all mine—that says that if the Member for Old Sarum had been on the committee for the 1832 Reform Bill, he might still be in the House of Commons. I was going to leave that out of my speech so as not to be provocative, because my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, “Don’t provoke them. Be conciliatory”. I really resent the attack of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on my noble friend, whom he implied was trying to lure the House in directions that it would not otherwise wish to go, which is again far from the truth.

We are trying to set out the Government’s strategy, listen to the views of the House and then try to resolve the differences such as we can. However, if I believe in a directly elected House and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon believes in a wholly nominated House, I have with all respect to ask him what alchemy will provide a solution. The late Liberal MP David Penhaligon used to say, “If you believe in something, write it on a piece of paper, stick it through a letterbox and persuade people to vote for it”. That is how democracy works—I assure my noble and learned friend that I am not telling him how to suck eggs. I cannot see a way of resolving a dilemma such as this other than by the political parties taking their case to the country and then bringing it back to Parliament. That is the process that we are undertaking at the moment. We have taken our case to the country; we are bringing it back to Parliament for a full debate, for full scrutiny, on the basis of a draft Bill. I cannot for the life of me see any other way forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton, asked why the Parliament Acts exist. I have always understood that the Parliament Acts are there to underpin the supremacy of the Commons. It was asked what the new reformed House would do and how it would challenge Parliament. There are many bicameral regimes around the world that manage to work out the relationship between Houses and do not end up with gridlock. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that I see this as an advisory and a revisory House. I was on the Cunningham committee. I remember the debates, and I remember why the refuseniks were so determined to write in to the Cunningham committee to say that its proposals should apply only to an unreformed House. They want to do exactly what they are doing now, which is to raise the spectre of some great constitutional battle between the two Houses.

I signed the Cunningham committee in the end, not, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, implied, on the basis that at the point of reform there would be a great constitutional crisis; I signed it on the basis that it would apply to a new House, but that at the point of reform it would have to be looked at again. Noble Lords can read the Cunningham committee report, and that is what it says. That is absolute common sense. My belief, which was confirmed in many discussions in the Cunningham committee, was that the Cunningham committee conventions would still work and operate in a reformed House. If there was a transitional period, there is no doubt that it would give the opportunity for a proper look at where and what part of the Cunningham conventions would need to be looked at again. I do not see them as the great crisis point implied in the debate.

A number of noble Lords said that we should not be looking at this because there was a great economic crisis. As I said during the Queen’s Speech, the Churchill coalition brought in the Beveridge report and the Butler Act and won a war. I do not believe that Governments are one-trick ponies; they should be able to bring forward other reforms at the same time as dealing with the economy.

I have no doubt that if a pre-legislative scrutiny committee of both Houses was set up to look at a subject as important as this one, whatever I say from this Dispatch Box, those Members will not be bullied or railroaded. They will do a proper, thorough job. Every one of them will know that it will be one of the most important pieces of pre-legislative scrutiny that anyone has ever considered, and I do not believe that it would be a problem. I am sure that I have missed some other questions.

On the attitude towards the Steel reforms, I am a little worried, as the Minister responsible for freedom of information, that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, breached the Act by revealing our e-mails. I have always said that we should let the Steel reforms be part of the mix, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has already indicated that one particular reform will be taken forward in a study group. The other elements will certainly be reported to the Clegg committee.

On the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on working practices, I am assured that the usual channels are looking to make an announcement very, very shortly—and that means very, very, very shortly, within the next few days—about how to go forward with a full debate on that issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, asked what would happen if a party came from nowhere to amass an overall majority. There is ample precedent for that. Labour was the junior partner in the war coalition but won a landslide at the 1945 election. I like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that on a regular basis. Again, that shows you how the House deals with such things. That is where the Salisbury convention came from. One of the great things about our Parliament is its ability to adjust to new circumstances, and that is a good example of it. We all want now to go to our beds—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

Forgive me, my Lords. The noble Lord answered the question from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about future use of the Parliament Act, but my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and others asked whether that Act would be used in the case of a forthcoming Bill on House of Lords reform. I wonder whether the noble Lord could clarify that.