Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Pitkeathley set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Lord Harrison to two hours.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, the Leader of the House has moved that the debate on the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Harrison should last for two hours. On the Order Paper, after that, there are, astonishingly, to be two Statements by two separate Ministers on the same subject. This entirely unprecedented action, which is also happening in the House of Commons, has, I understand, had to have the approval of the Speaker of the House of Commons, because it is unique. It has never happened before and the Speaker had to agree to it. You, Lord Speaker, do not have the power in this self-regulating House to agree to such an arrangement, an entirely unprecedented arrangement. The only power lies with us in the House to agree to that. I do not remember, recall or recognise that we have agreed to that. Does the Leader of the House intend to seek the approval of the House for such an unusual and unprecedented arrangement?

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, when he replies to that, can my noble friend the Leader of the House tell us whether the Statements are going to be antiphonal or sequential, and whether the Ministers will be questioned after each section of the Statement or at the end? Can he also tell us in what precise capacity the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is to address the House? Is he speaking as the leader of a political party in this House, or is he speaking on behalf of the Government? If he is speaking on behalf of the Government and my noble friend is speaking on behalf of the Government, what conclusions can we draw from that extraordinary state of affairs?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am delighted that so many noble Lords are sharp-eyed and have spotted that the annunciator has said that there will be two Statements after the Labour Party debates this afternoon. I am very happy to explain the position to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, says that this is unprecedented. It is certainly unprecedented in living memory.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Strathclyde]

But, my Lords, I gather that in the 1930s this sort of arrangement apparently took place. We have a coalition. On occasions—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Strathclyde]

On occasions, the different parties of the coalition should be able to make their views known to Parliament, and it looks as though this afternoon is one of those occasions.

As to the propriety of this House, what we are doing in this House is really quite simple. We are simply repeating Statements that have been made in the House of Commons: one being made by the Prime Minister and the other by the Deputy Prime Minister. As is standard practice on these occasions these Statements were offered to the Opposition, who can agree either to take them or not, or to defer them. Quite rightly, they agreed to take them. If the House does not wish to listen to me or to my noble friend Lord McNally repeating the Statements of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, it really does not need to at all. It will be quite late, after all, on a Thursday afternoon.

As to my noble friend Lord Cormack’s question, the Statements will be taken sequentially. What is interesting is that I am not entirely certain exactly how the Labour Party will approach this. I shall repeat the Statement of the Prime Minister, the Opposition will then reply, and then there will be 20 minutes’ Back-Bench time in the normal way that we wholly understand. After that is over, my noble friend Lord McNally will repeat a Statement of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am full of interest as to whether the Opposition will then say nothing, repeat the reply that they have already made or, more intriguingly, make a different reply to my noble friend’s Statement. There will then be another 20 minutes, if noble Lords wish to comment on it, and then we shall go on to the next business.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for so eloquently explaining the difficulties that the Government have found themselves in. Presumably that was an offer for me to make a statement—and presumably from the government Benches—because it seems that anyone can speak for the Government on these matters.

This really is a genuine first, when the coalition is so comprehensively divided that we have to go through this ludicrous episode this afternoon. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Companion states:

“Statements by ministers on matters of public importance may be made by leave of the House without notice”.

He has not really answered his noble friend Lord Cormack. When the noble Lord speaks as Leader of the House, will he be speaking for the Government? When the noble Lord, Lord McNally, speaks, will he speak on behalf of the Government? Or do we have two Governments, or perhaps no Government? Is this a precedent for the future? This afternoon in the other place there is to be an energy Statement. Is Mr Davey going to make one Statement on wind farms and Mr John Hayes another? I also do not think that it would be amiss for me to point out to your Lordships’ House that the coalition is not exactly united on Europe. Can we look forward to two Statements on Europe when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, repeats a Statement on Council meetings in future?

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been very keen in recent weeks to remind your Lordships’ House of the importance of sticking to the rules, but now we are apparently just waving the Companion away. Indeed, the Companion seems to have become the noble Lord’s flexible friend. Perhaps the real message for your Lordships’ House today is that this coalition Government’s days are numbered—and a jolly good thing too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

Is it now not abundantly plain that antiphonal would be better?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Cormack is enjoying himself far too much by repeating that word. Actually, I think the whole House is enjoying itself far too much and we really need to bring this very short debate to an end. My noble friend Lord Alderdice had it pretty well. We have a coalition and we are gently feeling our way on occasion as to the right approach.

I do think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, protests a little bit too much. I am sure that although from his Front Bench he will make one Statement, he will find a lot of disagreement with what he says from his Back-Benchers in both Houses.

The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, asked when the precedent was. I took a view a long time ago that any precedent from before the Second World War probably was not worth having, so I have not got it at my fingertips. However, I am reliably informed that it does exist. If I thought that we were breaking the rules of the House in doing this I would have said that to the House and then made a recommendation. There is absolutely nothing in the Companion that stops us having an innovative procedure on this, which is precisely what we are doing.

I know that noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth—are exercised about what, therefore, is government policy. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister set up this inquiry on behalf of the Government. He will make his Statement on behalf of the Government in the House of Commons; I shall repeat it here. However, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has taken the opportunity, as I think that both Houses will wish him to do, to make a separate Statement which will represent a view of the second party of the coalition. I think that we have flexible enough rules to be able to deal with that, and I very much look forward to the debate later on this afternoon.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House, although clearly the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is enjoying this debate. However, I would refer him to the Companion. It refers to “a government announcement”—it does not talk about separate government announcements. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. He has just said that he will be making a Statement this afternoon. He has still not answered the point as to who on earth he is making that Statement on behalf of.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, this is pedantry. If the noble Lords opposite really did not want these Statements they could have said so and the Statements would not be taking place.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House confirm that because this procedure is being accepted by him—and, I presume, very shortly by the House—we can therefore assume that the party other than the Conservative Party in the coalition did not feel strongly enough on student tuition costs or the Health Bill to issue a separate Statement?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, and no doubt other noble Lords, can make all sorts of accusations to my noble friends as part of this coalition. I think that it might be better if we wait until we have seen the response of Lord Justice Leveson and the Statements, and then the noble Baroness can make whatever point she wishes.

Motion agreed.

European Council

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this might be a convenient moment to repeat a Statement on the European Council made a few minutes ago in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

“Last week’s Council was unable to reach agreement on a seven-year budget framework. This Government rejected a proposal that would have risked UK taxpayers paying for unaffordable increases in the EU’s annual budgets. We did so together with like-minded allies from a number of different countries. As net contributors to the EU, these countries—like Britain—write the cheques. Together, we had a very clear message: we are not going to be tough on budgets at home and then sign up to big increases in European spending in Brussels.

Let me explain to the House the proposal we rejected, why a deal is still doable, why it is still in our interests to work to achieve that deal, and why throughout these negotiations I will continue to protect the UK’s rebate.

Our objective for EU spending in the seven years to 2020 is clear: we want to see spending reduced and will insist on at least a real-terms freeze. As the House knows, the actual EU budget is negotiated annually. What we were negotiating in Brussels last week—and will return to again next year—is the overall framework for the next seven years, which includes the overall ceilings on what can be spent.

During the previous negotiation, which covered the period 2007-13, the previous Government increased the payments ceiling by 8%. The commitments ceiling was effectively set at €994 billion—well above the level of actual spending. It was a bit like having a credit card limit far above what you can afford. It was an open invitation to the EU’s big spenders to push for higher and higher spending every year, and we are still paying the price for that decision.

This year, 2013, the Commission and European Parliament are attempting to grow the annual budget by another 6.8%. I am determined to get these ceilings down in line with what we can afford. Prior to the Council, the Commission produced a ludicrous proposal for increasing the commitments ceiling still further to over €1 trillion. We said no. The Cypriot presidency produced a slightly lower proposal. Going in to the Council, the President of the Council, Herman Van Rompuy, produced a new proposal: this time, a ceiling of €973 billion.

As you can see, we were making progress in getting the ceilings down. But as I and other leaders made clear, it was not enough. We set out a number of very reasonable ways in which the seven-year ceiling could be reduced even further, by tens of billions more. What was disappointing at the Council was that, having heard these proposals, the President offered a new proposal that failed to reduce significantly the previous total, and simply redistributed money to buy off different countries.

In a seven-year budget of almost €1 trillion, the idea that there are no real savings to be found is simply not credible. For example, when it came to the bureaucratic costs of the European Commission, not a single euro in administrative savings was offered—not one euro. We need to cut unaffordable spending. The deal on the table was not good enough and that is why we—and others—rejected it.

However, we believe that a deal is still doable. There is absolutely no reason why we should not be able to reduce the seven-year ceiling down to the level needed. There is plenty of scope for significant savings in the common agricultural policy and the structural and cohesion funds, but there are savings to be had in the rest of the budget as well. For example, freezing the ceilings for security, justice and external spending would allow €7.5 billion of additional savings. There are some programmes, like Connecting Europe, which have enormous proposed increases in their budget that can be radically scaled back.

As I have said before, there is simply no excuse for not taking a much tougher approach towards the EU’s administrative costs. The EU institutions have simply got to adjust to the real world. A 10% cut in the overall pay bill would save almost €3 billion. Relaxing the rules on automatic promotion at the European Commission would save €1.5 billion. Reducing the extraordinary generosity of the special tax rules for Brussels staff—the levy—could save around another €1 billion. Changes to pension rights could save another €1.5 billion. These are all perfectly reasonable proposals. That is why a deal is still doable, and we will push hard for these reductions when negotiations resume next year.

Briefly, let me be clear about why we want a deal. If no deal is reached, the existing ceilings are simply rolled over and annual budgets are negotiated on a year-by-year basis, taking account of those ceilings. Crucially, we would not get the reduction that we need in the seven-year budget ceilings negotiated by the previous Government. The credit-card limit would stay beyond what is affordable, tens of billions of euros higher than the deal that we actually rejected at this council. It is in our interest to get a deal. That deal must not come at any cost. We must not lock in unaffordable ceilings for the next seven years. If necessary, we may have to galvanise a coalition of like-minded countries to deliver budgetary restraint through annual budget negotiations each year.

Finally, let me say a word about the UK’s rebate. As well as ensuring fairness in terms of the overall size of the EU budget, it is also essential to ensure fairness in the net contributions to that budget that each country makes. At this council we faced, as ever, determined pressure from many sides for our rebate to be slashed. The changes on the table in the proposal in front of us would have cost the UK more than a billion euros every year, but I was clear that all of this was completely unacceptable.

Britain more than pays its way in Europe. On a per capita basis Britain is the 11th richest nation and yet as a share of our national income we are the third largest contributor and that is with the rebate, or what remains of it after so much was given away by the previous Government. Without it we would have the largest contribution in the European Union, double that of France and almost one-and-a-half times as large as Italy’s or Germany’s. That would be completely unfair. It is why Margaret Thatcher was right to fight so hard to win the British rebate. It is why the previous Labour Government did this country such a disservice in agreeing to give part of it away. It is why no Government that I lead will ever put that British rebate back up for negotiation.

We have put a marker down at this council. We stood up for the taxpayer. Together with like-minded allies we rejected unacceptable increases in European spending and we protected the UK’s rebate. We are fighting hard for the best deal for Britain and that is what we will continue to do. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am increasingly at a loss to understand the noble Baroness’s party’s position on our great European home, particularly given her background in the European Commission. What did it do when it was in government? The Government in whose Cabinet she sat waved through above-inflation hikes to the previous EU budget; they gave away £7 billion of our rebate; they failed utterly and completely to get CAP reform in return; and they would not even use the veto to protect Britain’s interests. All that goes on top of the promise in 2005, let us not forget, of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. As soon as they got in, they forgot all about that.

The noble Baroness, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, said that we do not have an alliance. The only reason that we are having this kind of Statement today is that we have a strong alliance. We have the Dutch, the Swedes, the Danes, the Finns and the Germans all backing our position. I would rather be with them on this issue than with the Labour Party. One might well ask where Labour’s alliance is on all this. It seems to be muddled, with its leader in the European Parliament asking for more money in stark contrast to the leadership demonstrated by—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I should point out that Labour MEPs in the European Parliament, led very ably, voted together with the Conservative Members of the European Parliament against an increase and in favour of a freeze.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is amazing how quickly policy changes in the Labour Party when it is in opposition, but its leader in Europe called for us to contribute £1 billion more to the EU. Its MEPs voted against freezing last year’s budget at 2010 levels and its group in the Parliament has called for a 5% budget hike and new EU taxes. And then to our rebate—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, that is not true. The leader of the group of European Socialists may well have voted in that way, but the leader of the British Socialists in the European Parliament, Glenis Willmott MEP, voted against, together with all British Labour MEPs.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I now wholly understand why I was confused. It just depends what kind of European Parliament socialist you are talking about. The noble Baroness also asked me about the real-terms freeze. We are of course in the middle of what will clearly be protracted and complicated negotiations. It is not possible for me to follow the noble Baroness into the detail of the numbers but we have said that we believe there is scope to reach agreement on a real-terms freeze, which would be a commendable objective to achieve. Furthermore, on the composition of the budget, if you look at the figures on agricultural policy, we were happy to go along with a cut from €336 billion to around €270 billion, which, with an added contribution from the Commission’s administration savings, would have been sufficient. However, for some other European colleagues, that was a cut too far on the CAP and it was not accepted.

I finish by dealing with the conclusions of the noble Baroness. She accused us of trying to do backdoor deals with UKIP. I can confirm that there are no backdoor deals with UKIP or indeed with anybody else. As for the Prime Minister being undermined by members of the Cabinet, I absolutely assure the noble Baroness that he does not feel in the least bit undermined by anything that anybody has said because we have a completely united view that we should operate with British interests and in the best interests of the British taxpayer. That is what happened at the end of last week in the European Council budget negotiations and it is what we will continue doing in the future.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement in your Lordships’ House. Does he accept that under no circumstances should we deviate from a real-terms freeze and that we cannot support a real increase in EU spend at a time when there is deep fiscal tightening in the United Kingdom and indeed across Europe, with British taxpayers seriously feeling the pinch? Does he also agree that this is not the time for political opportunism? Government figures show that the UK household is, on average, up to £3,300 a year better off as a result of increased UK trading with the EU through the single market. There are 3.5 million more UK jobs and the cost of living is some £480 a year cheaper per person as a result of EU-wide competition driving down the cost of goods and services.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is always good to hear my noble friend and his reiteration of the case for us being a member of the European Union, with the benefits that being part of the single market gives the British economy and indeed European consumers right across the Union. I also agree with what he said about our negotiating position. It is extremely important to get a message over to the European Commission that the days of continual increases in the budget have to come to an end. It is no longer possible for Governments to argue for reductions in their own national budgets while agreeing to extend those budgets in the European Union.

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I spent a good part of my career on European affairs in the British Government and some part of it in the European Commission. It is difficult to comment decisively on a negotiation that is not finished but will apparently be resumed in January in order to seek to agree on a multiannual budget framework for the EU. I know of course that, if agreement is not reached, we shall have annual budgets, so there will not be a deadlock. There will, however, be high costs, so we have to be attentive to that. There has also been talk about the British rebate—and there always is whenever there are EU financial negotiations. Can the Minister once again confirm that the UK rebate is subject to unanimity, that it cannot be changed without our agreement and that it is indeed an intrinsic part of the financial arrangements of the European Union?

The two key points of the negotiation of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in which I participated, was that the UK would receive a substantial amount of money—by the end of 2010, the British taxpayer had received £68 billion, which is well worth having—and that the rebate could not be taken away by qualified majority. My view is that we can sleep easy on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is always good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, who brings to this House a good deal of experience and knowledge from having held such a senior position within the Commission. I agree that it is very difficult to comment decisively at this stage, as we do not have the normal conclusions that we would have at this time, and the negotiations are to continue. The noble Lord is also right to point out what happens if we end up with an annual budget, annual negotiations and annual rerating. I can confirm his understanding—I expect that that is his understanding because he was there when it was originally negotiated—that the UK rebate can be changed only if everyone agrees. In other words, I can confirm that it is subject to unanimity.

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, one question that has not been answered needs answering. Where are the Government’s red lines in the next negotiations? We do not know; perhaps the Government do not know. If at the next round in January, or whenever it is to be, no compromise can be found, or it is a compromise that does not match what the Government feel they can accept, what are the Government going to do? Will they veto the whole thing or what? We do not know—perhaps the noble Lord does not know—but let us at least get an idea of where those red lines might be.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not think it is sensible to go into every negotiation with a public view of what your ultimate red line might be. We have been clear that what is needed is, at best, a cut—

[Lord Grenfell]

I am sorry, but on the Lisbon treaty we went into negotiations with red lines; they were very firmly laid out.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, if I may revert to a sad period in our history, that negotiation was subject to the agreement of the British people. As soon as the Labour Party won the election, it reneged on that arrangement. The noble Lord himself voted against giving the British people a choice. If they had had a choice, we may have ended up with something rather different.

Going back to the noble Lord’s original question, we feel that what is needed is, at best, a cut and, at worst, a real freeze to actual payment levels. Of course, we are still in negotiation. We will continue to have those negotiations until we start discussing it again. Noble Lords would not expect us to get into specific figures.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Does my noble friend agree that this firm line from the Prime Minister has opened up an extremely healthy and much-needed debate on the future structure of the European Union—the so-called overall framework, which, as presently deployed, creates constant upward pressure on spending, which all parties deplore? It appears that we have many allies in taking the view that European reform is needed. Does my noble friend therefore agree that, if we can develop a view about how the European Union’s overcentralised and outdated structure can be reformed, not only will we begin to have many allies throughout Europe but we ought to have the support of all sensible people in this House and elsewhere who want us to play a leading part in a modernised Europe that is fit for purpose in the 21st century?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My noble friend reiterates a position that he has held for some time. Indeed, he has been very much in the vanguard of this thinking. I agree that there is a lot wrong with the centralised, bureaucratised and expensive European Commission and how it operates that needs to be sorted out. The EU itself faces its own internal crises, not least within the countries of the eurozone, but all that is an opportunity for those who think like my noble friend to come forward with proper modernisation, as he called it—proper reforms that I believe would command a great deal of support within both Houses of Parliament and throughout the rest of Europe. He is right in saying that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is dealing with these negotiations in entirely the correct manner.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, has the noble Lord ever considered that our national influence in Brussels on this and other subjects would be enhanced—and therefore the national interest would be advanced—if the Government occasionally displayed some real, positive commitment towards our membership of the European Union, or even actual enthusiasm for it, rather than constantly carping, complaining and often threatening to leave? Would not such a more positive attitude better reflect the interests of the British people? Almost every subject on which the people of this country feel most strongly—whether it is prosperity within the single market, the future of world trade negotiations, our ability to respond to the challenge of climate change, our ability to cope with the threats of organised crime and terrorism, or the future peace and stability of our own region and regions around us on this planet—depends for its resolution on a cohesive and successful European Union. That must be part of the solution, not part of the problem, as the Government keep trying falsely to represent.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is unduly pessimistic and that he exaggerates. There is no threat to leave; not from the Prime Minister, not from the Foreign Secretary, not from me—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Mr Gove.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Nor from anybody else. There are those who suggest that at some stage there might need to be a referendum, and there may, but we will need to see what that will be about. On the contrary, I think that the noble Lord has completely misunderstood: we are very positive about the European Union, but a Europe which is cohesive and successful does not need to be bureaucratic, centralising and expensive. One needs only to hear my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford talking with such enthusiasm about what a reformed Europe could look like to know the truth of that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has exaggerated the position of the Government.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I have read the Statement and it seems to me to be an interim Statement. The Prime Minister is saying, “Not a penny more and, if possible, a lot less”. I raise two points. The first concerns the position of the European Parliament, which seems to have a lot to say about expenditure but of course has no power to raise the money. I believe that the Prime Minister should be pointing out that those who raise the money—in other words, the nation states—should have the most say. My other point concerns the rebate and the report that sets out very clearly what a reduction in the rebate would mean for British taxpayers. I hope that the Leader of the House can promise that the Prime Minister will not do what his predecessor did and give away some £1 billion of our rebate for nothing tangible in return.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord’s concluding remarks. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely plain—if the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, wanted a red-line issue, here is a red-line issue—that he will not surrender any part of the rebate. The rebate is absolutely crucial. There is a good reason for doing so: the last time a proportion of the rebate was surrendered by Mr Blair, he got absolutely nothing in return. It was a very positive act by the then Prime Minister, but it did not help the relationship or the further negotiations with the EU; quite the contrary.

I also agree with what the noble Lord said about the nation states. There is increasingly a division between the net contributors and the net benefactors within the EU, and it must be right that those who pay the most are listened to very carefully during these negotiations, which is why the UK finds itself not isolated over the course of the weekend but with some good friends who agree that these issues need to be debated and discussed in full and that reform needs to come.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, many of us have savoured the vision of Mrs Merkel swooning at Mr Cameron’s feet—as they say in Manchester, “A likely story”. I have two questions. The first is whether there is still some debate about what a freeze actually means. Where is the wriggle room in this debate? Is it to do with the price indices or the distance between the median amount in the present seven years and in the next seven, presumably with some prediction about price increases, or is it a freeze on where expenditure has now got to in 2012?

The second question is this: on the contrast in the Prime Minister’s Statement between the freeze that he is looking for in Brussels and the “big cuts” in Britain, is it not the case that in Britain there is a balance and, while the cuts are certainly very damaging, part of the result of the zero or very slow growth is that with rising unemployment and expenditure on social security, disappointing returns to the Treasury from corporation tax and so on, the OBR and the Red Book both state that in real terms we are now on a plateau, absolutely level, and will be for three or four years, and in money terms we are creeping up? If I am wrong on that, could the noble Lord write to me and put a copy in the Library, or does he accept that in real terms a freeze is actually roughly where we are in Britain as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am not entirely certain where the noble Lord is coming from. I am very happy to write to him, but we are fully supportive of the EU growth agenda. We want the single market to work; we want to extend it to make it deeper with better enforcement and better implementation. We want to increase the scope for the digital single market and e-commerce, and we want a far more ambitious programme of deregulation, which we believe will help growth. We are fully in favour of the EU’s stance on free trade and trade with countries in the world, particularly with South Korea, Canada and Singapore. All this is in large part due to the influence and pressure that we in this country have exerted

We can get ourselves in a terrible pickle over what we mean by a real-terms freeze and which figures we are looking at, but we have been clear that we would like a cut and, at worst, a real freeze to actual payment levels—it is those levels that count; we want to protect the rebate; and we want no new taxes to finance the MFF. These are the key issues, but if I can clarify any of that in a letter to the noble Lord, I will certainly do so.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, the Statement came across as though the Government regarded a real-terms freeze as the best possible option. Given that, across Europe, Governments are actually having to reduce expenditure, could one not expect something rather better than that: a real-terms reduction?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that would be very attractive and definitely worth going for. However, I expect that while we might go for, at best, a cut, we may need to settle for, at worst, a real freeze to actual payment levels.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I press the noble Lord on two agreeable exchanges he had with his noble friends, the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Dholakia. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, agreed that reform of the EU would be a wonderful thing. Does the Leader of the House agree that to get any reform of the European Union, to retrieve a comma from the treaties of Rome, requires unanimity among all 27 members? Secondly, on the claim of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that 3 million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union, I thought that we had killed this old chestnut some years ago. Does the Leader of the House agree that we do indeed have 3 million jobs, making and exporting things to clients within the European Union, but they have 4.5 million jobs making and exporting things to us and we are in fact their largest client? Were we to leave the European Union, there is no prospect of any of our jobs being lost. On the contrary, millions of jobs would be created because we would be set free from the clutches of this corrupt octopus.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord has slain this particular chestnut, if that is not mixing my metaphors too much. The fact is that an enormous amount of jobs in this country are linked to our membership of the EU through exports to the EU. However, the noble Lord may wish to take heart that, despite tough conditions, British exports of goods have increased in the past two years to China by 72%, to India by 94% and to Russia by 109%. So we can get the best of all worlds: we can have rising exports, better trade within the single market and better trade with the rest of the world.

I think that my noble friend—I am sorry, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Strathclyde]

I will get to my noble friends in a moment. The noble Lord was trying to create an artificial difference between my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Howell of Guildford, of which I think there is none. In the coming months, we will find that the British Government are forceful in looking at ways in which some of the competences that are currently held in the EU could be returned to the United Kingdom.

Electoral Registration Data Schemes (No. 2) Order 2012

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Bill is not on the Order Paper or in Forthcoming Business. Therefore, I have nothing more to add to announcements that I have made in the past.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, I was not able to be in the House when this matter was raised recently but, of course, I have read the exchanges and the related documents. I hope that the House will allow me to put a few comments on the record.

During my time as Speaker, I worked with three Clerks of the Commons. I believe that I had their great respect and support. They certainly had mine. If there was any success in that Speakership, much of it was due to their support and advice. Much of the time, the Clerk and I were as one with the way in which we should proceed. But, if I recall correctly, there were a couple of occasions when I overruled that advice. The decision was a very difficult one, taken against considerable professionalism and precedence. But I took it in what I believed to be the best interests of the democratic process, and to provide debate on a contentious issue of public interest and concern—and the roof did not fall in.

For us, of course, there is no Speaker here to make that ultimate decision. We all know what the Companion tells us; it has been repeated many times recently in this House. But by its very nature, it is advice that is offered to us and it is only advice; it is only expected to be taken. It is not a command, nor is it written on tablets of stone. I put it to the Leader of the House that, as there is no individual in this House to make the ultimate decision, is it not for your Lordships’ House to make that final decision? Certainly, such a decision and the order of the business of this House should not rest with the Leader nor with the Opposition, nor should it rest with any other individual who does not carry the authority to do so.

We are an integral part of the democratic system. The way in which your Lordships conduct their business is a matter for the House itself. I concern myself at this stage not with the substance of the amendment itself, or its merits or demerits, but with the question of admissibility. That is the principle question. Should this House not initially deal with the question of admissibility? I accept that it would be difficult to do so without discussing the substance, but it would not be impossible. Of course, following a decision on the principle, the substantive amendment would then either fall or be dealt with in the usual matter. That is surely the common-sense way of approach.

We are constantly being reminded that we are a self-regulating House. Let that be demonstrated, and let us carry out that self-regulation and operate the democratic process that we are here to perpetuate, for goodness’ sake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

I assure the noble Baroness that the Bill will not progress without the full scrutiny of this House. As I said earlier, the Government have not reached final conclusions on their deliberations but I am glad that there has been this short pause. As the noble Baroness has just informed the House, the pause has given an opportunity to those most eminent Members of this House to explore with the clerks whether the amendment can be made admissible. That is entirely the right approach. It would be strange and unfortunate if we were to break the precedence of many years and for this House to accept an amendment decreed as inadmissible by the clerks.

Perhaps I may be the first to welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. It is a pleasure to see her in her place and to hear her speak with such eloquence once more. It is one of the great advantages of this House that those with pretty much an entitlement to sit in this House are former Speakers of the House of Commons. With the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, we have the best examples of those who have sat in that illustrious Chair in another place, both giving their views on the advice they received and what they did with it when they were Speakers of that House.

There is also another wonderful thing, which is that the House of Commons is the House of Commons, the House of Lords is the House of Lords, and this House has developed different processes and procedures. While we are a self-regulating House, it is not a self-regulation of anarchy; it is self-regulating within the rules. Perhaps I may conclude by repeating once again what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, said on a very similar occasion a few years ago, when she was Leader of this House. She said:

“It is a consequence of our procedures that the House has collective responsibility for observing these procedures and that all Members of your Lordships’ House therefore need to co-operate to see that procedures are observed”.—[Official Report, 20/4/99; col. 1112.]

She was quite right.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I have been listening carefully to the Leader of the House and he has not clearly informed the House of the position in relation to this Bill. It is not unheard of for Bills to be abandoned during the course of a normal parliamentary Session; indeed, I am delighted that the Government decided to abandon the House of Lords Reform Bill. When they abandon a Bill, they normally make a clear statement to the House on their intentions. However, at the moment, we are getting very mixed messages from the Government. Whenever his counterpart, the Leader of the House of Commons is asked about the position in relation to this Bill, he states clearly—and procedurally he is right—that it is now a matter for the House of Lords. Thereby, the Bill is within our ownership and the Commons can do nothing about it until we have considered it and taken it through its proper stages. The noble Lord said during his reply that there was to be a “short pause”. The House is entitled to have at least some indication from the Leader of what he means by that.

[Lord Strathclyde]

First of all, to avoid any doubt because it is important to be clear, I can confirm that the Bill has not been abandoned; it has been postponed. When the Government have come to a conclusion that it should continue, the House will be informed in the normal way, either on the Order Paper or in an edition of Forthcoming Business. However, I can lend some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Although the current edition does not propose a date for the Bill, it includes plenty of other government business that we can get on with.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this, but I wish to say—because the Leader keeps quoting my noble friend Lady Jay in our exchanges, and I fully respect what my noble friend said when she was a very fine Leader of this House—that it is ultimately for this House to decide on the admissibility of an amendment, because this House, ultimately, is self-regulating.

Contracting Out (Local Authorities Social Services Functions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2012

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the draft orders and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.

Motions agreed.

Draft Care and Support Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Care and Support Bill presented to both Houses on 11 July 2012 (Cm 8386) and that the committee should report on the draft Bill by 7 March 2013.

Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.

Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Doocey set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Baroness Walmsley to two hours.

Motion agreed.

Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That Standing Order 30 (No Lord to speak more than once to a Motion) be dispensed with during the Report stage of the Financial Services Bill so far as is necessary to enable debates on amendments Nos 70 and 80 (concerned with LIBOR) to be conducted as if the House were in Committee.

Motion agreed.

House of Lords: Peers

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any further plans to reduce the number of peers in the House of Lords.

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

My Lords, the Government have no further plans for legislation to reform this House in this Parliament. As far as this Question is concerned, I encourage Peers to take voluntary retirement should they wish to cease taking part in the work of this House on a permanent basis.

[Lord Dubs]

Does the Leader of the House agree that this House is now far too large and that there is not a single Member of it who would be happy at further increases? What do the Government intend to do about the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel? I put to him one further suggestion that is a bit bolder. Why not suggest that, if anybody wishes to stay in this House, they drop their title but, if they leave the House, they can retain it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is a suggestion to add to the very many that have been proposed in recent years. As for my noble friend Lord Steel’s Bill, as the House knows, it passed through this House very easily. It is now in the House of Commons and has not yet been picked up by a Back-Bench Member. We will see what happens to it in the weeks ahead.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Given that this is a self-regulating House, and given that Prime Ministers have not always been entirely au fait with its proceedings, would it not be a good idea for us to amend our Standing Orders to set a limit on the size of this House, which would be useful guidance for future Prime Ministers?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that would not be in the least bit effective. It is entirely up to the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty on the creation of peerages. This has been well used in the past. In the 10 years between 1997 and 2007, the Labour Party created 162 new Peers—100 more than went to the Conservative Party.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, is the Leader aware that a number of noble Lords of mature years have indicated that they might consider the possibility of honourable voluntary retirement given an incentive—say, in the form of a retirement gratuity equivalent to the expenses that they had claimed in the previous year? Some have indicated that, in the absence of such an incentive, it is likely that they would continue to stay in the House indefinitely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, try as they might to stay here indefinitely, they would find that extremely hard. I am no actuary but we have lost 39 of our number since the general election. It is likely that we will lose a similar number between now and the next general election. I have heard it whispered in the corridors that the House is increasingly keen to debate and discuss some form of retirement scheme, including an age limit. I very much welcome all those who wish to come forward with such thoughts.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, will my noble friend at least give one undertaking to the House: that the Government will not do anything to stand in the way of the Steel Bill should it be picked up by a Back-Bench MP in another place?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, why do we not just wait and see whether it is picked up by a Back-Bench Member?

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, may I encourage the Leader of the House to go ahead with those conversations that he suggested as there is a widespread feeling in the House that there is a possibility of a rational, staged and fair way of reducing the size of the House? He was very relaxed about the Bill in the other place. I suggest to him that the danger to the reputation of this House is not only in its size. At the moment it is also in the fact that those with serious criminal convictions are free to return to the membership of the House. The Steel Bill would put that right and I suggest that it would be wrong not to take that opportunity.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I think that the most important part of my noble friend’s Bill is that which deals with serious offenders.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Leader’s reforming zeal is a matter of great note in your Lordships’ House. However, he will recall that last Thursday we had a very good debate, opened by my noble friend Lord Filkin, on working practices and procedures where many of these matters were discussed. In that debate he was asked to reconvene his Leader’s Group to see whether the House could reach a consensus on these important matters, including retirement issues. I invite him to reconsider his answer and agree to set up such a group.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have already set up a Leader’s Group to look at retirement issues, chaired by my noble friend Lord Hunt. Its conclusions deserve rereading and I am more than happy to re-examine them to see whether any changes could be brought forward given the position that the Government are now in; namely, that there will be no further legislation for this House in this Parliament.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that banishing those who do not attend would be pointless and equally that persuading non-attenders to come regularly would be counterproductive? Has my noble friend seen the excellent note from the Clerks on this issue which records the fact that in 1820 the House ordered that Peers be fined up to £100 for each day’s absence? At today’s money, would not that help deal with the deficit?

[Lord Strathclyde]

It certainly would, my Lords. I have not had the luxury of reading the Clerks’ paper but I very much look forward to doing so.

Arrangement of Business

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, last Wednesday, I made a short Business Statement to draw the attention of the House to a change in the Order Paper for that day to facilitate a period of reflection on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill before the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton, invited the House to consider an amendment which the Clerks had advised was inadmissible.

Forthcoming business had advertised that the Bill would next be considered today. Noble Lords will see from the Order Paper, and the revised edition of FB circulated last Thursday, that that is not now the case. Today’s business is debates, and not legislation. The reason for the change is the same as that which I gave the House last Wednesday.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Strathclyde]

All those involved need further time to reflect before the House is invited to take a decision either on the admissibility of the amendment or on its merits. It will not surprise the House that those involved include senior members of the Government and, until their discussions are concluded, the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill will not proceed further in Committee. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, the Leader of the Opposition, intends to speak, but if she does, perhaps she can answer this question.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness to speak. If noble Lords opposite listen, they will understand precisely why I am posing it. On the last occasion that a Conservative Back-Bencher insisted on tabling an amendment against the advice of the Clerks, the then Leader of the House drew the matter to the attention of the House, as the Leader is required to do, and asked the House to endorse the opinion of the Clerks and, thereby, maintain our customs and procedures. The Leader of the Opposition unreservedly supported the Leader of the House, and the Clerks’ advice, and the Back-Bencher concerned did not move his amendment. The noble Lord was my noble friend Lord Trefgarne; the Leader of the House was the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington; and the Leader of the Opposition was me. Will today’s Leader of the Opposition tell us whether she will respect the role and advice of the Clerks, as her predecessors have always done?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for his Business Statement seeking to explain why the House is again not dealing with the business that it—and indeed the Leader of the House—was expecting to consider. Your Lordships’ House expected on Wednesday of last week to consider the second day in Committee of the Government’s Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. Instead, it was given an explanation by the Leader of why that would not be the case. During the course of his remarks in the Chamber, he said of the postponed business:

“I expect the business to be taken next Monday”.—[Official Report, 31/10/12; col. 622.]

That is today. However, as we know, today’s Order Paper yet again does not feature the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. Instead, we have a further Business Statement from the noble Lord.

In the light of today’s wholly inadequate Statement from the Leader of the House, it is transparently clear where the disorder is on this matter. It is on the Conservative Benches opposite. Within the coalition, it is clear that the Liberal Democrats are standing by their declared position that they will oppose the Government’s proposed changes to Commons parliamentary constituency boundaries, and the boundary reviews that would put them into effect. We on these Benches oppose them also. So do noble Lords on all sides of the House.

The Leader of the House, in his Statement last week, attempted to paint a picture of the amendment to the ERA Bill that would retimetable the boundary reviews as stemming only from these Benches. This House knows that the amendment was signed by four Members of your Lordships’ House: my noble friend Lord Hart of Chilton, a senior lawyer and former adviser to two Lord Chancellors; the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a former Permanent Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, a former chief executive of the Liberal Democrats; and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, a former leader of Plaid Cymru. Each is from a different part of the House; all are Members of the House who are highly distinguished and highly respected; and all are putting forward the amendment on boundary reviews.

There are a number of important issues here. On the merits of the amendment, the Government would be better advised to put their effort and money into improving the electoral register, and into making sure that as many citizens as possible are able to—and do—take part in our country’s democracy rather than into gerrymandering the voting system. We know that there are a number of views on the issue of admissibility and relevance. I hope that as many noble Lords as possible have read the legal opinion that we on these Benches commissioned, and last week placed in the Library of the House, which makes it crystal clear that the amendment to the Bill is both highly relevant and admissible.

The Leader invited me to give my opinion and say what I would do. I stand by the amendment as tabled. While I entirely respect the Clerks of the House, who are excellent, this does not mean to say that their view cannot be questioned. In this instance, having read the advice in the letter from the Clerks, and the quotations from Erskine May, I believe that we are right to ask the four noble Lords in question to continue with the amendment.

What characterises these and other issues is simple: this House should discuss them. It should consider the amendment, and the issues raised by it—but it is not doing so. Instead, and for the second time—in a move that we believe to be unprecedented—the Government have pulled the Bill from the Order Paper. Why have they done so? We have heard no satisfactory explanation from the Leader of the House. I hear that the actual reason is that time could not be found for the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to meet to consider the issues ahead of the Prime Minister’s visit to the Gulf today. Even if that is the case, it is not a sufficient explanation: not sufficient for the workings of government, and absolutely not sufficient for the relationship between the Executive and the legislature. Parliament is not the plaything of government: in particular, Parliament is not the plaything of a political party in trouble. By yet again pulling consideration of this Bill because of the amendment being proposed to it by distinguished Members from all sides of your Lordships’ House, the Conservative Party, for party-political reasons, seeks to subvert the constitutional role and practice of this House. The Conservative Party seeks to prevent a discussion that this House wants to have.

One of the roles of Parliament is to protect the public interest against, if necessary, an overweening Executive. In this case, the public interest is clear: it is not in the public interest for the system of parliamentary democracy in the country to be shrouded in a lack of clarity, which the Conservatives’ position on boundary changes has produced. MPs, candidates, political parties and, most importantly the public, need certainty in the electoral system.

There is a further issue. In casting around for matters to be put on the Order Paper today in place of the ERA Bill, the Government have alighted on three issues: the role of the Armed Forces, policies on planning, and the fate of the British ash tree. They are all extremely important issues, but in a part-time, voluntary House, where Members have to arrange their time, it is a discourtesy to your Lordships' House to bring in, without any material consultation, debates in this way on matters about which many Members of this House may be interested, just to fill a party-political gap.

In what it is doing in relation to this Bill, the Conservative Party is seeking to subvert democracy. It should simply stop trying to do so now. I invite the Leader of the House, in his response to the issues raised in the Chamber this afternoon, to stop treating your Lordships’ House in the way that it has done so far on this Bill and stop running scared of this House considering, debating and, if necessary, dividing on these issues. It must stop treating this House as if it were a plaything of the Executive, face up to its responsibility to Parliament and set a firm date very soon for the Committee stage of the Bill—a date that it will stick to and a date that will allow this House to get on with the business that it wants to consider.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, first, the Government have not pulled this from the Order Paper: it is important that the House should recognise that. Secondly, it was never on the Order Paper. If any noble Lord can demonstrate how it was on the Order Paper, I would like to see it. But it was not on the Order Paper and has not been pulled from the Order Paper. That is the first accusation that is wrong.

Secondly, the usual channels were told on Thursday evening, which is plenty of time to let noble Lords know. Thirdly, on Thursday afternoon, we had a debate in this House about the lack of topicality of debates. Well today we have enabled the House to have a most topical series of debates.

But let us deal with the substantive nature of this. The noble Baroness said that the Government are perverting democracy. Perverting democracy in the House of Lords? That is a strange one. Secondly, the noble Baroness said that the review was simply about boundaries. It is not. It is a review to reduce the size of the House of Commons to save a considerable amount of taxpayers’ money and rebalance the number of Members of Parliament throughout the United Kingdom.

I return to the central point of my speech. Today, the noble Baroness, the Leader of the Opposition, who held this post as Leader of the House only two and half years ago, said that she will now ignore the instructions and the advice of the parliamentary Clerks.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I know many other noble Lords will wish to come in, but I would say three things. First, the debate was on the Forthcoming Business of this House and on the green sheet. Secondly, the House is an integral part of our democratic system. Thirdly, I did indeed very proudly hold the position of Leader of the House. But I believe that when I did so I acted in the interests of the whole House—the House as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, with respect, I think that it is this side’s turn. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has just said, but I am bound to say that I totally disagreed with it. I disagreed with it almost absolutely. It is an extraordinary proposition that, if the Government bring in a Bill that allows the Opposition to table an amendment to it, somehow or other, it is unconstitutional for the Opposition then to table that amendment because the Constitution Committee has not been consulted. That is nonsense. If the Government have produced their Bill in the form that they have produced it, and if the amendment is in order, there is absolutely no reason why the Opposition should not table it, why the House should not debate it and why a vote should not take place.

We are making very heavy weather of this. The constitutional position is very clear: there is no Speaker in this House; there is nobody here who can determine whether the amendment is in order; and the clerks are there to give advice. Of course, there is an obligation to take the advice, but there is no obligation to follow it any more than there is an obligation on the Speaker of the House of Commons to follow the advice that he is given by the clerks of the House of Commons. If this House is self-governing, as it is supposed to be, the body that has to determine whether the amendment is in order is this House and nobody else, and certainly not the Constitution Committee.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I know that one or two Peers still wish to speak, but I wonder just how much will be gained by that. Perhaps I can give a brief response to some of the points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, as Convener of the Cross Benches, said that we should invoke proper procedures in accordance with the rules of self-governance. I very much agree with that approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and others referred to the fact that I said last Wednesday that I expected that we would continue the business today. That was my expectation. The fact is that the discussions that I hoped would take place have not been completed. Therefore, rather than having a debate which may prove to be unnecessary, it is far better for those discussions to continue.

The usual channels were informed at the earliest possible opportunity, on Thursday evening. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, that 41 speakers have put their names down for today: not much notice, but enough for 41 speakers to put their names down.

To the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who said that we should just accept the amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—

[Lord Peston]

That was just one suggestion; what I was really suggesting to the noble Lord is that he goes away to sort this out. That is what their Lordships want. He does not have to accept my suggestion, although I think it is a rather good one. My main suggestion is: just go away and get this sorted.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is a much better line. That is the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I recognise; not the one who spoke a few minutes ago.

Let me just explain for a few moments to those who have questioned the process, the procedure and, indeed, my personal motivation in all of this. We do not have many rules in this House, but we do have some. One of them is that when an amendment is deemed inadmissible by the clerks, I have an absolute duty as Leader of the House—the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, if she were Leader of the House, would do the same thing; the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, did it in the incident to which I referred a few months ago—to draw that to the attention of the House. The House, ultimately, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, is the arbiter of this. We cannot find an occasion—

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that the House ultimately is the arbiter of this, but the reason that he gave for the delay was that the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, the Deputy Prime Minister, would have to be consulted. If it is a matter for the House, why do they have to be consulted?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we are crossing two different things. One is my role as Leader and the other is when we take this. I thought it right, as did senior members of the Government, that there should be a period of discussion before bringing the business before the House. As I explain, they are two clearly different things: one is the role of the Leader of the House and the other is a decision for the Government. It must be right that the Government decide when to bring business forward; after all, that is the purpose of winning a general election.

The noble Baroness said: why cannot we have our say? She is entirely free and allowed to bring forward her own Private Member’s Bill at any stage and, if it is in order, it will be taken. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford asks an extremely sensible question: why cannot these brilliant individuals, such as the noble Lord, Lord Hart, with all his training and knowledge of this House, advised no doubt by outside counsel, not bring forward an admissible amendment? I do not know the answer to that. I urge the noble Lord to do so. Then we would not be having this debate.

I am grateful for the support of my noble friends Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Crickhowell. There are matters of processing procedure that are not always straightforward in this House. I urge noble Lords who wish to discover more to go to the very excellent seminars that the Clerk of the Parliaments holds from time to time on these matters. They will discover that, as I said earlier, although we do not have very many rules, we do have some, and this is one of them. Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, my predecessor, said:

“It is a consequence of our procedures that the House has collective responsibility for observing these procedures and that all Members of your Lordships’ House therefore need to co-operate to see that procedures are observed”.—[Official Report, 20/4/99; col. 1112.]

I could not have put it better myself.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, before the noble Lord the Leader of the House sits down, would he be kind enough to acknowledge something that he has not acknowledged so far in discussing all this? It is not only my noble friend Lord Hart who is bringing forward the amendment. It is also brought forward by the former head of the Diplomatic Service from the Cross Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and, perhaps most significantly, by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who is such an important figure in the Liberal Democrat party. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to acknowledge that before he sits down.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is because of the eminence of the four individuals who have brought forward this amendment that I pray in aid my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. Why cannot they find a better way of doing it?

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

May I make a point which has not, I believe, been touched upon up to now? There are procedural issues that are fascinating and of massive impact; there are also constitutional issues dealing with the possible merits of the amendment that are of massive impact. One point that I suggest should be considered by anybody who has the future of this House, and indeed the good of Parliament, in mind with regard to the two statutes we are concerned with—first, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 and, secondly, the matter now before the House—has been very pertinently made in the most excellent opinion of Mr James Goudie, a Queen’s Counsel. It is that those two pieces of legislation, assuming that the ERA Bill goes through in its present form, are out of sync one with the other.

I can put it very simply in this way. In so far as the 2011 Act is concerned, the number of registered electors is the very touchstone of the approach of the Boundary Commission to the situation of a particular constituency. I do not think anybody would disagree with that. In relation to this proposed legislation, however, that situation is fluid not solid. It is fluid in this sense; at the moment, it is the householder who is legally responsible for registering persons living in his property. From the time that the ERA Bill becomes law, it will, of course, be a responsibility upon the individual elector. The effect will be that in the first instance there will be a fall in the number of registered electors in each constituency—I do not think that anybody can dispute this—because of the change in responsibility between the individual and the householder. Any calculation made by the Boundary Commissions will therefore be inaccurate. That is why the two pieces of legislation are out of sync one with the other. It was contemplated at one time that both should be looked upon as one whole. In a speech on 5 July 2010, the Prime Minister said that the effects of the proposals would be considered together. That is what I urge upon the Government in this context.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I mean no disrespect at all to the noble Lord, and no doubt what he has said will be debated when we get to the Bill, but I wonder if the time might have come for us to proceed with the business of the day.

[Lord Barnett]

Before the noble Lord the Leader of the House sits down, I have one brief point to make. I have some fellow feeling with him because I too was once accused of being discourteous to the House—as he will no doubt recall because he was the one who accused me of it, and then apologised privately and personally in a very kind letter. The important thing here is that, as has been made quite clear, it is for the House to decide, so let him put this business on the Order Paper and it can do so. Why has he not given us an adequate reason for removing the business? We know that some slight disagreement between his fellow coalition members might be a problem, but the House can decide—that is what we are here for. Why will he not bring it back?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is really not much more that I can add to what I have already said.

House of Lords: Working Practices

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am bound to say that I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and to other Members on the Labour Back Benches, for giving us this platform for today’s debate, and to all noble Lords who have taken the time to contribute. I am rather a fan of these debates with four-minute speeches. They work extremely effectively; we get a lot of Peers in and it concentrates the mind. I have the luxury of having a little bit more time, which I shall use.

Perhaps the most consistent theme running through successive debates in this House on the Government’s proposals for reform has been our reputation as a revising Chamber, a reputation that Members on all sides take great pride in—and it is right that we should. Just over half of the Back-Benchers who have spoken today have had experience in the House of Commons as MPs. I make no particular point about that except to say that we should always remember that this House is very different from the House of Commons. Because the Executive have such an overwhelming and overpowering majority in the House of Commons, and can therefore do virtually what they like, they need the power of the Speaker to help to control that, and to give the voice of the Back Benches. The Executive in this House have no majority. We have a powerful Opposition, and the purpose of the usual channels—although everybody has poked fun at them—is to represent the interests of the whole House. In the end, the House can overturn decisions of the usual channels, although I hope that it will not do so.

I discovered to my horror, while sitting here musing away, that I have been a member of the Procedure Committee for 20 years. You get less for murder. It is an extraordinary thing. But like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I am greatly encouraged by the tone of the debate. I did not agree with everything that every Peer said, but I found something to agree with in bits of what every Peer said. We do our job very effectively in this House, through our committees, including the committees that sit off the Floor of the House, through the reports that we make, and by the standing and reputation of individual Members of this House.

Why were we not reformed by the elected House? In the end, I think that there are two reasons. First, there was a perception outside this House that we do the job that we do extremely well. Therefore, there was not that motivation for a great change. Secondly, I believe very strongly that the more the House of Commons looked at proposals for electing this House, the more it feared that we might end up doing our job rather better than it did. That was one reason why I was rather keen on it; I was ambitious for this House. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, warned us that political parties might find a populist measure, by which he meant further plans for reform of the House. All I can say to him is that I would not tempt them too much on that; they really do not need it.

What does this extraordinary Chamber do? It assists without threatening the primacy of the other place. It discharges its core duties in a manner that seeks to complement, not compete with, the House of Commons. Why does it not compete? Because we do not have the authority of the people as the other place does, and without the authority that direct election of Members might confer it remains the case that the influence that we exert on another place and on the Government of the day rests mainly on the force of the arguments that we deploy and on recognition outside these walls of the experience and expertise that Members of this House possess, individually and collectively. That is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was getting at when he talked about his matrix. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said about strengthening Parliament. With both Houses together, we should seek to do that, and to some extent this Government have done that. That reputation is the currency on which we trade. It is therefore only right that we consider, as we have done this afternoon, how best to protect and enhance our reputation and to be able to do our jobs even better.

My noble friends Lord Higgins, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Cormack, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made important passing references to the way in which the House of Commons does business. I will not spend any time discussing the House of Commons. It works out the way it does its business best. It has programming and we do not. On the whole, that is an advantage for this House. The House of Commons has selection of amendments and we do not. Here, every Back-Bencher has the right to put down an amendment to any Bill and it must be heard and responded to by a government Minister. That is extraordinarily empowering for Members of this House.

As the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, set out in his Motion, part of the answer to all this must lie in harnessing the skills and experience of our Members and ensuring that they are deployed to best effect. Like the report of the Leader’s Group before it, the Motion identifies three core functions of the House: scrutinising legislation, holding the Government to account and providing a forum for public debate. There is also being topical, as my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft suggested. I slightly regret that the Motion does not make explicit mention of the revision of legislation, which is in my view the chief function of this House and the cornerstone of our reputation. If you ask anybody what the second Chamber does, almost all will say that it revises legislation. That is an important thing.

One of the most frequently rehearsed complaints in this House is that it is asked to consider too much legislation and that the level of preparation and consultation that precedes the introduction of specific Bills is inadequate. I suspect that that complaint has been made for several hundred years. Certainly, I can remember it being made in the 1980s, 1990s and the last decade. It was made again today. That does not mean that we should not take it seriously or find ways of making life easier.

Let me deal with some important issues to do with the Leader’s Group. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and my noble friends Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lord Tyler said that all the recommendations in the original report deserved to be debated by the House. They certainly do. That is why a debate on the report and the recommendations contained therein was arranged on 27 June 2011. That was in addition to the debate on working practices held at the very start of this Parliament, in July 2010, prior to the establishment of the Leader’s Group, and the debates of 9 November last year and 26 March this year that informed the decisions taken by the House in respect of specific recommendations. Again, there is this debate today.

The other complaint was that only a few of the Leader’s Group’s recommendations have been brought to the House for decision. I fundamentally disagree with that point. The implication is that only a few of the Leader’s Group’s recommendations have been taken forward. That is a myth. The 55 recommendations amount to 43 specific proposals, because some just affirm the status quo and others spread one idea over many paragraphs. Of those 43, 25 have been put to a domestic committee and another four have been partially put forward or have confirmed the status quo and been implemented. By setting up the Leader’s Group and inviting the domestic committees of the House to consider taking forward the majority of these recommendations, I have probably done more as Leader to bring about change to the working practices of this House than any of my recent predecessors.

There are some proposals that have not been put forward, partly because there seemed no inclination for them to be agreed and partly because there were disagreements within the Leader’s Group and within the Procedure Committee. No fewer than six members of the Procedure Committee went on to vote against the report on Grand Committees. Of those Members who voted against the report—the House will remember the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Cormack on the Procedure Committee report—some are exactly the same noble Lords who now say that we should debate and agree all the proposals, such as that on the Grand Committees, which was extremely controversial when we dealt with it on the Floor of the House a few months ago.

I am pleased to say that in one respect at least we may be turning the tide of decades because the Leader’s Group observed that, leaving aside a brief period around 2002, the number of Bills or clauses of Bills published in draft had remained low and the number scrutinised by Select Committees, whether Joint Committees or Commons-only Select Committees, had been lower still. All that has changed over the past two and a half years. In the previous Session, the Government published 11 Bills or clauses of Bills in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny and in this Session we are on course to publish at least nine in only one year. That is good news. At the Government’s instigation, moreover, we have seen a resurgence in the number of Joint Committees conducting pre-legislative scrutiny. There were four in the previous Session and we expect five to be set up in this one. Those trends are no accident: we have deliberately set aside the resources to support an additional pre-legislative scrutiny committee this week.

We have also made progress, as was noted by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Cormack and by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in relation to post-legislative scrutiny in response to concerns that, once legislation is passed, insufficient attention is devoted to its implementation and effects. For the first time, we have appointed a dedicated Select Committee to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of the legislation relating to adoption in England and Wales. The committee is due to report before the end of the Session and the intention is that it should be the first of a series of post-legislative scrutiny committees, each looking at a different area of the law with a membership tailored to the Acts under scrutiny, so as to make flexible and targeted use of Members’ expertise.

Although we have made considerable progress on those fronts, enhancing the quality and reach of our scrutiny at the beginning and end of the legislative process, I know that there are still some in the House who are interested in a legislative standards committee. Many noble friends mentioned this: the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, my noble friend Lady Tyler and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who I am glad to hear has been receiving so many comments by e-mail—he is no doubt enhancing his reputation by replying to each of them in detail. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons is currently considering the proposal for a legislative standards committee as part of a broader inquiry into ensuring standards in the quality of legislation. Two Members of this House—the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart—have given oral evidence to that inquiry and my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons is due to follow suit. Without wishing to pre-empt either his evidence or the Government’s response to any recommendations resulting from the inquiry, I make the following observations.

There is in my view a tension between this House’s role as a revising Chamber and the idea that one of its committees, composed of a small group of Members, should recommend that a government Bill progresses no further. The analogy with secondary legislation and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is not apt. Secondary legislation cannot be amended, whereas the very purpose of a Bill’s passage through Parliament is to provide an opportunity for improvement and revision. In that sense, the House is itself a legislative standards committee; that is our primary and principal function. Denying a government Bill that has already passed through the House of Commons a Second Reading on the recommendation of a legislative standards committee would be an extraordinary step. Were the committee’s remit to be restricted to Bills starting in the Lords, it could have the unintended consequence of reducing the number of Bills that start in this House. Even if there were to be agreement on a Joint Committee, as recommended by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I would remain uneasy at the prospect that a Government in command of a majority in the House of Commons would henceforth need to present a business case for their legislation before Parliament would consider it.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

It would be extraordinary if, on the basis of a recommendation from a legislative standards committee, the House were to decide not to allow a Bill to proceed. That would be the nuclear weapon, and I should be very surprised if it ever happened. Of course, the case of the Bill to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor was a very rare occasion when the Government decided to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I would expect the committee recommending that a Bill should not proceed to be an equally rare occasion. The point is that if there were criticism of the standards to which a Bill had been prepared, I believe, and I think that other contributions have supported this, that that would have a very beneficial effect inside the Government on the standards to which legislation was prepared, without ever reaching a point where Parliament decided to refuse to allow a Bill to proceed.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord in always wanting to find ways to improve the quality of legislation. Sometimes, though, we need to be able to decide what has gone wrong, not just in the past decade but probably in processes over the past 40 to 50 years, and find out why legislation has changed so much and why it has got so difficult and complicated. We have seen this week, in having to pass an emergency piece of legislation correcting something that was not done properly 10 years ago, some of what goes wrong. Whether a legislative standards committee would make very much difference, I am not sure. Like the noble Lord and probably the rest of those who have spoken today, I look forward to the report from the House of Commons before we can take this further.

One question that has been raised by noble Lords and was posed by the Leader’s Group is whether we might make better use of our time in the Chamber. In order to free up time on the Floor of the House, the group proposed the introduction of a rule that most government Bills should be committed to Grand Committee and suggested that we might extend the sitting hours of the Grand Committee by introducing morning sittings. A variant of those proposals was put to the House by the Procedure Committee last March, only to be rejected emphatically. That is the point that I was making about members of the Procedure Committee, as well as members of the Leader’s Group, voting against that recommendation. In due course, I am sure that we will have to look at that again.

The next key question that many speakers raised was the attraction of a Back-Bench business committee—or a debates committee, a description mentioned by, I think the noble Lord, Lord Luce—in the expectation that a sifting mechanism for Back-Bench business might increase the topicality and profile of our debates and might serve the House better than the ballot and waiting-list mechanisms through which we currently select topical questions. My noble friend Lord Faulks pointed out some of the difficulties with this idea. It is not that the Back Benches would be deciding; it would be that some Back-Benchers would be deciding. We would have to go with care to decide whether or not this was actually an improvement. Of course we already have a sifting mechanism for most Thursday debates, which are selected by the political parties and the Cross-Bench group. Our debate this afternoon was selected in that way by the Labour group. We therefore already have some degree of intelligent selection, if one can call it that. It is interesting that at its next meeting the Procedure Committee is going to consider whether we should stop having a queueing system for Starred Questions and replace it with a ballot, so ballots clearly have their uses somewhere.

As for Questions for Short Debate and some of the Thursday debates, I see the ballot as a useful complement to the debates selected by the parties and groups. They provide Back-Bench Members with an alternative outlet for securing debates on subjects that, for whatever reason, did not appeal to their party or group. We have only to consider that a few weeks ago my noble friend Lord Maclennan led a balloted debate on the potential break-up of the United Kingdom and my noble friend Lord Lexden secured time for a QSD on the treatment of homosexual men and women in the developing world. They served to showcase the House at its best.

My main concern is that a Back-Bench business committee would in practice place a new obstacle in the way of Back-Bench Members wishing to secure time for a debate. Rather than Members walking into the Minute Room to table their Motion and then waiting their turn or taking their chance in the ballot, they would, if we were to follow the Commons model, find themselves filling in application forms and arranging to appear in person before a committee to plead their case. If they failed to persuade the committee, that would be that. We would have removed the last remaining vehicles for Back-Bench Members to get their debates on to the Order Paper directly and, in all likelihood, all we would gain in return is to become a mirror image of the Commons, debating all the same subjects. I urge noble Lords who are keen on this to come forward with a proposal that the Procedure Committee can examine.

As others have mentioned, one area in which we have taken major steps to make better use of the skills and experience of our Members is in the appointment of Select Committees. We have now established the new quick-fire, in-depth examination, annual, extra, cross-departmental committees. I think that they are an excellent addition. The government Chief Whip has recently told Conservative Peers that they should consider choices for next year’s Select Committees, and I urge the Opposition, my noble friends the Liberal Democrats and indeed the Cross-Benchers to do the same. I think that these will be really good committees. Over a five-year Parliament, we should be able to deal with 10 committees. That will strengthen our reputation for scrutiny.

I hope that my remarks this afternoon have served to illustrate that we have made considerable progress since the start of this Parliament. We have taken forward a majority of the recommendations from the Leader’s Group and, although some of them have been turned down by the House, I believe that I have done more to change the working practices of the House than any of my recent predecessors. I therefore see the withdrawal of the House of Lords Reform Bill not as a turning point in that process but rather as a milestone.

Talking of House of Lords reform, I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds and many others talked about the size of the House and how it should be reduced. I know that bishops retire at 70, but I think that most noble Lords in this House would regard that as a little young. There are possibly ways that we can find to encourage Peers to retire, but Peers ought to be careful what they wish for. They may discover that culling Peers is more popular than culling badgers. The Steel Bill remains in the House of Commons. Let us see where it goes. As the noble Lord knows, I have no in-principle objection to the Steel Bill, and I think it does some perfectly valid things, but the House of Commons has recently voted for an elected House, although it could not quite follow through.

This has been a useful and interesting debate. I have gone beyond my time, for which I apologise. I will try to pick up some of the other issues that have been taken up. I shall finish with this point: one of the most interesting and senior committees of this House is the Procedure Committee. It has a remit to look at and examine proposals that are laid before it. Any Back-Bench Member can put forward proposals to the Procedure Committee and I suspect that in the next few months we will see a lot more representations being made.