Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, this is the sort of opportunity that the Government should take. My noble friend Lord Rooker’s amendment is modest and sensible. He is saying that it would be possible for the Government to have the referendum on any date between 5 May and 31 October 2011. He is not addressing the combination issue; nor is he addressing how long it would take to have proper debates. He is saying, “Give yourselves some flexibility”.

There are obviously two reasons for flexibility. The first is in relation to the administration of the election. In relation to the administration of the referendum, the Electoral Commission believes that,

“on balance … it should be possible to deliver the different polls proposed for 5 May 2011”.

I am quoting the chairman of the Electoral Commission when giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament. It is to be noted that that conclusion, she says, is expressly contingent upon “the key practical risks” being “properly managed”. The Electoral Commission has several times repeated that,

“the rules on how the referendum will be conducted must be clear from at least six months in advance”.

We are now less than six months in advance from the date of the referendum. It has added that,

“provided the Bill receives Royal Assent in time to allow a referendum period of at least 10 weeks, there will be adequate time for the Commission to register campaigners and designate lead campaigning organisations, and for campaigners to put the arguments to voters”.

Put neutrally, it is pretty obvious that there is a significant risk that the administration will not be ready by 5 May 2011. That should be looked at in the context of the Government not having consulted, before they chose 5 May 2011, either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. The Scottish Executive expressed the view that holding the referendum on 5 May 2011,

“shows a lack of respect for the devolved administrations”,

and,

“undermines the integrity of elections to the Scottish Parliament”.

As everybody knows, the Welsh Assembly Government are likewise opposed to holding the referendum on the same day as the Assembly elections.

The Select Committee of this House published its seventh report of the Session 2010-11. It was printed on 10 November 2010 and its cross-party unanimous conclusion was:

“Given that the Bill was introduced in the House only six months before the proposed referendum date, there is a danger that these deadlines will not be met”.

The obvious and sensible conclusion for the Government is to give themselves leeway if they cannot meet the deadlines, either because of organisational issues or issues in relation to scrutiny. A Government who say no to that are a Government in their early days. If they were more sensible, they would say, “Yes, I see the force of the argument and we will agree to that”. If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pushes the matter to a vote, we will support it.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we have had another series of interesting debates, largely on the same issue that we discussed the other night—the question of the date. Noble Lords who were there will have recognised that many of the issues that were raised last week were raised again today. I make no great criticism of that. It is inevitable in the early stages of discussing a Bill. The only surprise is that nobody, in an hour and a half of debate, mentioned a subject that was raised several times last week—that of the royal wedding. So as far as I can see, we have moved a great step forward over the course of the past week.

The debate really divided into three groups of speakers. First, there were those who were against the amendment and in favour of the Government’s proposal. Secondly, there were those like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who sensed that the Government were doing the right thing in offering a referendum but that they have not thought through all the various contingencies and needed some help and support—the word “lifeboat” was used and that sort of language. And thirdly, there were those like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, my noble friend Lord Hamilton, and one or two others, who were opposed to the referendum and opposed to AV, and they also would support the amendment.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

There is another group as well. There is a group of us who passionately support a reform of the electoral system.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, there is a fourth group which supports a reform of the electoral system but not this reform. But this amendment is about the date, and all those who will support the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, if he presses it to a vote, have understood that by accepting this amendment, in practice the referendum cannot take place on 5 May. Amendment 5 does not specify an alternative appropriate day. Setting the date in the Bill, as we have done, gives certainty to those involved in the planning and campaigning. I could not help thinking during the course of the debate that if the Government had published a Bill with no date, noble Lords opposite would be the first to get up and say, “How outrageous this is. How can anybody campaign? This is the Government making it up as they go along”.

We decided on 5 May because it is the best date. It is when 84 per cent of the population will already be going to the polls. Or I should say that 84 per cent of the population will have the opportunity of going to the polls—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is right to admonish me on that. I made the argument last week and I make it again: it will save us a great deal of money—something like £30 million—if we go ahead on the day that we have decided.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that people will be confused. There is a lot of outrage in the House today about this sense of confusion. As my noble friend Lord Tyler said, people have no difficulty in voting in local elections and general elections on the same day. In this House, we are used to making lots of decisions every day, but the poor people outside are not so blessed with our brains and will find it much more difficult. I think not. People are well capable of deciding who should represent them in terms of local government, the Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament. They are able to decide on a simple yes or no whether they wish to have AV. I have no truck with these arguments about confusion.

The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made a point that was echoed by one or two other noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, about whether it was negligence or discourtesy that we had not consulted the other parliaments and assemblies in the United Kingdom. The Government wanted to make an announcement on a national basis on a given day to Parliament. Even if it was a lack of respect, should we change the date just because of that lack of respect, if there is no other reason not to continue?

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Granted that the Government had a total conviction that it should be 5 May and nothing else, would it however not have been courteous, chivalrous and statesmanlike to have consulted the Parliament of Scotland and the Assembly of Wales?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am sure that it would have been all of those things, but none is a reason not to have the referendum on 5 May. That is the point.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked whether, if we carried on like this, there was any prospect of getting this legislation through not just by the end of January but by the end of January 2020. I have my doubts as well. Of course, that gives the lie to the accusation that we are not debating these issues thoroughly. We could not debate these issues more thoroughly than we have done over the past day and a half in Committee.

Before us is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who offered us the date “before 31 October”. In the same group we are offered 30 June, 15 September, 6 October and 13 October, and the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, offered us 3 May 2012. It is a smorgasbord of opportunity. I am grateful to noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who have been constructive and helpful by saying that we should save ourselves with this lifeboat of an alternative. However, I am entirely satisfied that, with the evidence from the Electoral Commission and the debates within the Government, we are perfectly capable of holding this referendum on 5 May.

I have one other concern. The real unspoken reason why so many noble Lords opposite are against—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I apologise for interrupting, but the noble Lord appears to be moving on. The heart of the argument expressed by the Select Committee in this House is that there is a significant risk that the date will not be reached. If that is wrong, you can have your referendum on 5 May. Could the noble Lord possibly, out of respect to the committee, answer its point?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, if there is a risk, it is minimal. We have had the evidence from the Electoral Commission, which believes it is possible and has given evidence to noble Lords on that basis.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Its words were “on balance”. Minimal was the noble Lord’s word.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Whether it is “on balance” or “minimal” we think it is perfectly possible to have the referendum on 5 May, which is why I have set out the case during this short debate.

[Lord Soley]

I am going to invite the noble Lord to answer my question on this—he took a great deal of interest in it when I was asking it. It is a sort of module in his academic progress.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, did indeed ask me a question. He asked—I wrote it down—“What happens if the Electoral Commission declares that the referendum cannot be held to an effective standard because of late changes to legislation?” The Electoral Commission has declared itself satisfied with progress so far. There is no reason why that progress should not continue. The conduct schedules to the Bill are based on tried-and-tested election rules. There is nothing new, nothing revolutionary, everything has been done before. It is on that basis that we do not accept that problems will arise.

The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, was trying to get in but he has had a change of mind, for which I am very grateful. He does not have to intervene.

[Lord Grenfell]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Has there been a change of heart in the Electoral Commission in this case? How recent is the evidence it has now given that in fact it is happy with the progress made on this? What happens if, in the weeks to come, it is no longer happy? Will there then be a case for the Government to change their mind about the date?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, its opinion is rock solid. It has every confidence.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The Electoral Commission says:

“It is possible to successfully deliver these different polls on 5 May but only if the risks associated with doing so are properly managed”.

Upon that edifice does the non-round ball man, as he is described, rest his whole case.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, asked whether the Electoral Commission was going to change its mind. I said that it is not going to change its mind because it is rock solid. It has made the assessments, done the research and taken a view. We have accepted that. None of the amendments so far would give us cause to change that view. All these issues were debated in the elected House—in another place. We have had substantial votes on the changing of the date and the different structures of different electoral systems.

What concerns me most is that many noble Lords, who are opposed to this Bill, oppose it because it is one of the political ideas that binds this coalition. In opposing this they see a valuable weapon in bringing down the coalition. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his kind offer of a lifeboat; I hope he will take it in the spirit in which it is intended if I cannot accept it and very much hope he will withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness McDonagh]

The noble Lord did not answer my questions about whether there would be any mayoral or local referendums on the same day as this referendum.

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords, there will be local referendums on this day. There are a number of elections. It might be helpful to noble Lords if I read them out. With the voting systems referendum, there will be elections for the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Irish Assembly. There will be local elections in England, in 36 metropolitan boroughs and 49 unitary authorities; in some of these, one-third are up for election, and some are all up. Then there are the 194 second-tier districts in England. In other words, 279 local authorities will run elections in England. There will be local elections in Northern Ireland and mayoral elections—that was what the noble Baroness was after—in four local authorities in England: those of Bedford, Middlesbrough, Mansfield and Torbay. Then, of course, there will be parish elections in England.

[Baroness McDonagh]

That was not my question. My question was whether this May there will be any local referendums on whether an area has a mayoral election and a mayoral system. Twelve were due to take place in May in our largest cities, and the Government considered putting them off for a year. Some of that will be dealt with in the localism Bill, but no one knows when that Bill will enter the other House. The Government seem to be in a lot of confusion and to be having difficulties with their legislation at the moment. Will all or some of the 12 local city referendums take place in May, or will they be put back to 2012?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am glad for that clarification. I did not fully understand the noble Baroness’s question. The answer is yes—it is likely that there will also be some local, mayoral referendums in England on 5 May, which will be run on the same boundaries as the referendum and local authorities. We have included provision to allow for those polls to be combined with the referendum.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

The noble Lord very kindly gave us a list of areas where there will be elections, but perhaps he could give us a list of the areas where there will not be elections. Clearly, London is omitted from that list. Is he suggesting that because of the capital’s enthusiasm for one side or another in this argument, Londoners will somehow troop gaily out to the polls when they have no other reason to do so?

[Lord Strathclyde]

There will be no elections in the areas that I did not mention. The noble Lord may feel that Londoners will be uninterested, but I have complete faith that the campaigns for yes and no will be able to get Londoners out on this important issue.

[Lord Rooker]

My Lords, without being personal in any way, can I say that I am really looking forward to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, answering one of these debates? His name is on the Bill, but he has not really played much of a part as the leading member of the coalition here.

[Lord Strathclyde]

It is a long Bill, and an awful lot of noble Lords on the other side want to ask us questions. My noble friend and I, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have divided up the Bill and will speak at later stages.

[Lord Rooker]

I really appreciate the fact that the Leader of the House is taking a detailed role in the passage of the Bill. That being so, he has more clout than the others and therefore could have asked for better briefing. Where is the list of risks? Do not tell me that there is no group of Ministers or civil servants assessing the risks of this measure. If there is not, there will be one hell of a row, because every other public body has a risk assessment of things that can go wrong. It is implicit that in the conduct of public administration there should be an assessment of the risks, but there is no mention of that. There is a fixation on certainty instead. I do not mind that; I am just offering the Government a degree of flexibility on the practicalities. I deliberately did not refer to any of the other amendments on the dates. I do not want to get involved in this debate about the combination of referendums, elections and other dates. I would settle for 5 May, no problem, but is it practical?

In paragraph 24 of the Constitution Committee report, to which my noble friend referred briefly, the Electoral Commission said:

“Provided the Bill receives Royal Assent in time to allow a referendum period of at least 10 weeks, there will be adequate time for the Commission to register campaigners and designate”,

lead campaigners.

My point is that until Royal Assent, not a lot of money can be spent, in the education process, to cover the problems that the public might have. That recent poll was not undertaken 100 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard said; it was undertaken by YouGov for the Constitution Society in only August/September this year. The issue is that 10 weeks before 5 May takes us to 24 February, and this House is in recess on that day. We rise on 16 February and are not back until 28 February, so we have lost even more. We are back after Christmas for fewer than six weeks until 16 February.

All I am saying is that we should consider the risk of uncertainties. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned foot-and-mouth disease, and I was involved in some of the meetings at which there were big debates about what to do about the general election. Everyone knew that local elections and general elections were supposed to happen but there were hot discussions in the Cabinet and with the Prime Minister about them. We had a degree of flexibility, but the fact is that no one had planned for foot and mouth. We did not plan for the one in 2007, which was completely self-inflicted. We could have a problem and all I am saying is that, leaving aside some of the issues raised by colleagues, we ought to build in flexibility.

I shall not go through all the debates, but I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. It is not a sneaky amendment; it is seductive, if you like—I prefer seductive. If she wants sneaky, there is one much further on in the Bill; it came out of last week’s debate and I fully accept that it could be classed as sneaky. I am trying to give the Government the opportunity to have flexibility. All Governments want it; local government wants it. It was in my mind that 31 October had been referred to somewhere. I had forgotten that it was in the Constitutional Reform Bill. The previous Government introduced a Bill without a date—they said that it should be before 31 October.

I have not talked to anyone in the Electoral Commission, although I went to a meeting the other week at which it could not answer some of the questions put by noble Lords. However, this amendment could not possibly cause the Electoral Commission one iota of concern. The date of 5 May is still a runner. That is the Government’s intention, Parliament’s assumption and the assumption that we want everyone outside to make. There is a degree of certainty. No one will say that it is deliberate, but things can happen outside the control of local government, the private sector and central government. It does not really matter; one can think these things up, which is why I am sad to say that we have not had the list from the risk committee that has been discussed in government. I cannot believe that this has not been dealt with somewhere.

We have not had a good response. I have no intention of pushing this, as there are other issues that I want to talk about, but on this amendment I will test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, Amendment 15, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bach, concerns the combination issue, which has been debated on a number of occasions.

The speed with which the Bill has been put together has been justly criticised. One consequence of the haste has been a lack of consultation on the date of the proposed referendum. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly were not consulted about the date, and during the debate on the previous amendment I read to noble Lords the view that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly took on that matter.

The poll, as proposed, will be on 5 May next year. On that date, elections are already scheduled for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, 279 local authorities in England and 26 local councils in Northern Ireland, as well as some mayoral elections. Thanks to the questions asked by my noble friend Lady McDonagh, who sadly is not in her place, we have learnt that, although the legislation has not yet been passed, there will in addition in certain places be a number of referendums on whether there should be mayors. Therefore, 5 May will be a busy electoral day for the vast majority of the British public, even without a referendum vote, and it will be made all the more busy if the poll on changing the electoral system goes ahead on 5 May as well.

We are not suggesting for one moment that voters will be unable to vote in more than one poll at once, but the potential for confusion and administrative complexity must be acknowledged. In its assessment of a combination of referendums and elections, the Electoral Commission pointed to risks arising from different regulatory regimes running concurrently. These regulations can refer to spending limits and also to the make-up of the electoral register. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes informed us in Committee last Monday, overseas voters, for example, are on the parliamentary franchise but not on the local government franchise, whereas citizens of European countries living in the United Kingdom are on the local government franchise but not on the parliamentary one.

Campaigning for the multitude of votes on 5 May 2011 will also cause a muddle. The election campaigns for the local and devolved assemblies will be held on a party basis but the campaign for the referendum will be cross-party. I may be of the same opinion as many noble Lords opposite when it comes to deciding whether we should adopt the alternative vote system for elections to the House of Commons but, should I meet the noble Lord the Leader of the House on the streets of London, I do not believe that we will be arguing for the same party candidate to be returned. On reflection, no party candidates will be returned in London because there will be no voting in London, so I shall be very confused if I am there.

The Gould report on the 2007 elections in Scotland identified the combination of polls as one of the most controversial aspects of the votes that took place on 3 May 2007. Gould concluded in his report:

“If local issues and the visibility of local government candidates are viewed as a primary objective, then separating the Scottish parliamentary from the local government elections is necessary in order to avoid the dominance of campaigns conducted for the Scottish parliamentary contests. In addition, separating the two elections would result in minimising the potential for voter confusion”.

The issues surrounding the local and devolved elections already scheduled deserve the space to be debated and aired without the distraction of totally different matters relating to the referendum. Similarly, if the arguments surrounding the merits or demerits of changing the voting system for the House of Commons are to be fully discussed and understood, they need their own time and space as well. Changing the voting system is a major and significant constitutional reform. It should not get lost among campaigns and arguments.

We believe that our argument for no combination of polls is strengthened given the circumstances in which the date of the referendum vote came about—five days of coalition negotiation and we are told that there is to be a vote on 5 May 2011. It is the sort of thing where it would be useful to consult more widely and then come to a sensible conclusion about the date. Despite knowing that the devolved Assemblies would be voting on this day, neither Scotland, Wales, as I have said, nor Northern Ireland has been consulted on the referendum date. Alex Salmond wrote to the Prime Minister in the following terms:

“I believe that your proposals to hold a referendum on the same day undermines the integrity of the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These elections are of profound importance to our citizens and I believe they have the right to make their electoral choices for the respective devolved chambers without the distraction of a parallel referendum campaign on the UK voting system”.

The Welsh Assembly Government have been similarly scathing. The fear of distraction from other polls to be held on 5 May was the motivation behind the Welsh Assembly’s decision not to hold its own referendum on extending powers to the Assembly on the same day as Assembly elections.

The cross-party Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has noted opposition to the combination of polls. It has quoted the matters I have identified from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and agrees with that sentiment.

There is a critical issue which all of those issues are but an expression of. Our Constitution Committee said that if you have an election on the same day as other elections, even assuming that you can get through the issue of confusion, there is evidence showing that the reform issue will be swamped by the issue of who you want to have as your elected representative, whether it be in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the local authority. That is what the evidence shows.

I understand why those negotiating the coalition agreement five days after the election were unaware of that evidence. However, now that we know that the experts are saying that this is the position, and in view of the fact that we are dealing with an issue as important as a change in the electoral system, it is very difficult to see what damage, beyond the money that the extra poll would cost, would be caused by having it on a different date. I cannot believe that the Government honestly think that if we had to have them on different days we could not afford to have them. I cannot believe that they honestly think they could not get enough voters out to make it plausible. If they do think that then we should not have this referendum at all.

I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to focus on the issue. He wants a plausible referendum which people have confidence in. Listen to the evidence, and have it on a separate day from all of those other polls. I beg to move.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for introducing his amendment. As he laid out, it seeks to prevent the referendum from being combined with any other poll. I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed regarding combining polls next May: we had some of them in the previous debate, and last week. However, as I said earlier, 84 per cent of the electorate will already have a reason to go to the polls on 5 May 2011, and combining this with other polls on that day will save in the region of £30 million across all polls.

Combined polls are not unusual and I have every confidence that voters will be able to distinguish between the different polls taking place—in fact, it is increasingly strange to suggest otherwise. What does the Electoral Commission say? It advised that it is possible to successfully deliver these different polls on 5 May. The commission also issued briefings throughout the Bill’s passage through the Commons and has concluded that the Bill contains,

“the necessary provisions for the combination of the referendum poll with the scheduled elections. We are satisfied that the technical issues we have identified with these provisions to date have been addressed by the Government.”.

The commission went on to say:

“The Government has tabled a series of amendments … to reflect relevant changes to the election conduct rules made by the revised conduct Orders for the May 2011 elections to the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly and local councils in Northern Ireland, which have been laid before Parliament. We welcome these amendments which seek to ensure that the combination provisions are accurate and workable”.

The noble and learned Lord quoted the Gould report. I, too, have read what he said, and we can all quote selectively from it.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Before the noble Lord quotes from the Gould report, could he identify for the House the occasions on which a referendum and an election have been combined on the same day in Britain?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I cannot quote a combined national referendum and national election but that does not mean that you cannot have one now. In respect of the comparison with 2007, Ron Gould said:

“I do not believe that holding both on the same day would create the same degree of confusion and resultant rejected ballots especially if sufficient advance public information and guidance was provided to the voters”.

The rigorous testing carried out by the Electoral Commission should also reassure those worried about voter confusion. The new draft clearly enables the electorate to understand the choice they are being asked to make and to express their views. The Bill also gives the Electoral Commission a role in providing information about the referendum and how to vote in it, which will help to minimise confusion. For those reasons, I hope the noble and learned Lord will feel that we have covered all the questions that he posed.

The only election which comes to mind when there was a combined referendum was the one which the noble and learned Lord will remember so well in London in 1998.

[Lord Rowlands]

Does the noble Lord think that he knows better than all the Members of the National Assembly and the First Minister of the National Assembly, that this would not be a major distraction to the elections in Wales?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

I understand the views in Scotland and in Wales, and possibly in Northern Ireland as well. However, we have asked the Electoral Commission to give us its considered view. It has done so, and we back it.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Following that question from the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, perhaps I can ask who decided that there should be no consultation with the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I accept that there was no obligation whatever on the Government to change their mind on the matter of 5 May but, nevertheless, the decision not to consult was deeply insulting not just to the Parliament and the Assembly concerned but to the nations concerned.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I accept the noble Lord’s point; he has made it before. Perhaps if we were doing it differently, it would be done in a different way. For reasons of confidentiality and of making a statement, and rather than allowing the rumour mill to flow, it was right to make the decision we did.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Can I tempt the Leader of the House to apologise on behalf of the Government to Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, as I think there has been discourtesy towards them? He was good enough to say just now that possibly, if the Government were doing this again, they would do it differently. Will he go a step further and make a handsome apology? They have been treated with discourtesy and disrespect.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I do not believe in apologising when I am not fully aware of the facts.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Will my noble friend comment on the fact that there are many other legislatures where elections, referendums and plebiscites are held simultaneously and the people of those countries do not seem to be incorrigibly undermined in their decisions as a result? Secondly, will he comment on the fact that paragraphs 9 and 10 of the first schedule to the Bill set out a very stringent duty on the Electoral Commission and the various election officers to inform the public? As I understand it, the Electoral Commission intends to circulate to every household in the land a plain English guide to the issues about which the referendum is to be held.

[Lord Strathclyde]

It is as much a mystery to me as it is to my noble friend why the Labour Party and the noble and learned Lord believe that it will be impossible for people to vote in one election and in a referendum.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Let me help. What happens is that people concentrate on the election of individuals and they do not focus on the change. As I am on my feet, perhaps I may also say that I was struck by the reference to confidentiality. Has the noble Lord been trying to keep secret from Scotland and Wales the fact that this referendum was going on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My point was that there was an aspect of confidentiality before the decision was announced; of course there was.

[Lord Soley]

Will the Leader of the House make clear whether this confidentiality relates to shared Cabinet responsibility, or is it entirely separate from that? Is it something that civil servants recommended, or is it a political recommendation?

[Lord Snape]

The noble Lord brusquely spurned my offer of a meeting in Stockport this weekend, but perhaps I can further tempt him to put some flesh on the bones of this. Can he confirm that there will be no real problem about adding the alternative vote to all the other matters that will be taking place if the Government get their way and we all have to troop out to vote for various things on the same day? How many people has he come across who have actually advocated the AV system? In his experience, aside from the rather peculiar friends that we all keep in politics, who, among ordinary people, knows exactly how AV works or, in fact, does not work?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I cannot possibly answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Soley. If I am able to find out, I will drop him a line. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, introduces an interesting argument: if, as he believes, people do not understand some aspect of this, they should never be asked whether or not they agree with it. Apart from the fact that that shows a surprising degree of arrogance and is patronising to his former constituents, even if they do not understand it now, they will have plenty of opportunity to do so before the referendum takes place.

[Lord Snape]

I hope I have shown no arrogance, nor have I patronised them. They are not my former constituents, in fact. I am talking about the fellow citizens of my home town—the town that the noble and, alas, absent noble Lord, Lord McNally, represented in the Labour interest in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, the noble Lord cannot get away with that; it is not a plausible response. The fact is that for people who do not take a deep interest in politics, the letters AV make their eyes glaze over. All that we on these Benches are saying is that before such a momentous and dramatic change is put to the British people in a binding referendum, some explanation ought to be put before them as to why this particular system—denounced as it was for many years by the Conservatives’ new-found allies in the Liberal Democrats—is the one and only choice to be available to them on the ballot paper. As for the other point, about being patronising, the noble Lord will notice that I have an amendment down for debate later which gives people genuine choice between first past the post, which I support, and the AV system, which, as far as I am aware, has no great supporters other than those hoping to save their necks among his new-found allies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker]

Perhaps I can add to that. I was not going to intervene in this debate but I was struck by the Leader of the House’s use of the word confidentiality. I have the privilege outside this House of chairing the board of a non-ministerial department—I give a new flavour to the coalition, in some ways, on a UK-wide body. We are responsible and accountable to the four separate Governments. The issue of confidentiality, lack of trust and not being able to be frank and open with Ministers—who are themselves very widely in coalition in the UK—has, in my experience, never arisen. The devolved Administrations are not the enemy. I am not certain but I have a feeling that some Ministers in Whitehall, or the infrastructure in Whitehall, are new to dealing with devolved Administrations who have genuine power—it was new to all of us—and they look on them as the enemy. But they are not.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I certainly do not think that they are the enemy either. The point I was making was that the correct announcement was to make a single national statement, which is precisely what we did. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, says that nobody understands what AV is. That, of course, will be up to the campaigns and the Electoral Commission to explain. As for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her issues about knocking-up, again, this is a campaigning issue and it will be up to the campaigns to decide how best to get people to vote yes or no during the course of the campaign.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

This debate followed the pattern of the last debate: the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was incredibly attractive on the periphery of the debate but refused to answer the central issue—the swamping argument. Instead, he said that we were saying it was impossible to have the debate, which was very disappointing. He was arrogant in treating the request of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament for an apology. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon made it absolutely clear that he was expecting not a personal apology but an indication from the Government that this is a serious matter, and an apology—or token of acceptance—that this is not something to be laughed at. Perhaps one reason why the debate was quite frustrating was the dismal performance of Ministers in dealing with the heart of the issue. The only way that it is possible to make the Leader of the House concentrate on the issues is to keep putting them. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House on the combination issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble Lord is right. We did not implement Lord Jenkins’ proposals. We said that if we were going to implement a change, there would be a referendum. I fail to see how that justifies implementing a system of election which Lord Jenkins said would sometimes lead to greater disproportionality than the present system. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has said, that leads to the second party’s second preference votes having no say in the answer. Although he is absolutely right to condemn us for that, I do not think that it allows the public to have sicked upon it a system that absolutely no one wants. My position on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is that I admire his logic in proposing it, but I would not support it because of the technical changes. In a sense, I think he is wasting his time.

[Lord Strathclyde]

If noble Lord, Lord Owen, had been here—like others I wish him well—I am sure that he would have been immensely proud of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, moved his amendment. I expect he would also have been reminded of the reasons why he left the Labour Party in the first place.

The purpose of the amendment is to give people the choice of a proportional system along with the choice of first past the post and the alternative vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, explained, they had previously tabled an amendment giving a choice of AV+, AMS or STV but had subsequently changed their amendment, so it was not about specifically wanting to pose AV+, AMS or STV as options in their own right but to pose the principle of PR as an option.

We believe that on an issue as fundamental as voting reform, the public need to be given a clear choice that will produce an equally clear result. The key point is about the impact that this sort of approach will have on the result. I understand that the noble Lord wished to see a multiple choice of voting options, including some form of PR. However, for the sake of simplicity—this is the crucial point—it is better to present people with a simple yes/no alternative, exactly as set out in the Bill. Multiple choice questions go against the recommendations of the Lords Constitution Committee report on referendums, which concluded that the presumption should be in favour of questions posing only two options for voters. That is one of a number of many points on which we agree.

A referendum on AV replacing the existing system will give a clear choice to the electorate, with the ability for them to express a clear view. Offering more than one choice could lead to an indecisive result and confusion over the interpretation of the result. The watchwords that we need to stand by when holding any referendum are simplicity, clarity and decisiveness. We would risk disregarding each of those if we went down the road suggested by these amendments.

The question in the Bill as it currently stands reflects the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, which tested the question through focus groups and interviews with members of the public as well as through input from language experts. This amendment risks going against that independent advice from the Electoral Commission, which recommended that, unlike a question requiring a yes/no answer, this style of question has never been used in a UK-wide referendum, and, as such, fuller testing would need to be undertaken before recommending this style of question ahead of a more traditional yes/no question.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If during the referendum campaign the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is in a television studio and is asked why the public cannot decide on the system that they want—first past the post, a variant on the alternative vote system or a proportional system—how would he reply?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I would reply that this is the system passed by Parliament: that, in particular, the House of Commons agreed on the system, as we did—if that is what has happened—and that is why we have the choice of AV. As to why we have AV above the other systems, no doubt we will get to that in other debates. Of course, AV is the one that preserves best the link between elected Member and constituency.

Another issue is that the wording in the amendment could influence voters, as it says:

“It is proposed that the system should be changed”.

The Government are neutral on which voting system should be used, and that statement could be misleading.

In these amendments there is not even an indication of the kind of proportional voting system that the public would get if they voted for this option or of how this type of system would work. One attraction of the approach taken in the Bill is that for all the arguments there might be about how AV works, the Bill sets that out in Clause 9 and in Schedule 10. Any questions about how AV works can be resolved by looking at the Bill, which would not be the case with these amendments. The results might be a lack of clarity and voter confusion.

[Lord Sewel]

For the sake of completeness and comprehensiveness, would the noble Lord agree, given the weaknesses of the definitions under proposed new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), that for the sake of completeness there ought to be mention of the additional Member system that has at least been tried and used in parts of the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

That is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and not for me. I hope that he will not press his amendment. I know that he wanted a short debate about these matters—he may have got more than he bargained for—and I hope that he will reflect carefully about what I and others have said. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The head-turning going on is easily identified. The public, however, are interested in the merits of the argument. What I cannot understand at the moment, because no argument has been advanced, is why AV is the only alternative that has been given. That is the question posed by the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Rooker. There must be an argument beyond simply saying, “We reached an agreement over the weekend and that seemed a sensible thing to do”.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would have the referendum pose not one but two questions and present the option of four different voting systems to the public—alternative vote, additional member system, single transferable vote and supplementary vote—rather than the simple choice between the current system and the alternative vote. We believe that on an issue as fundamental as voting reform, the public need to be given a clear choice which will produce an equally clear result, and there are a number of ways in which these amendments would stand in the way of that.

The noble and learned Lord asked why we are not giving another choice. That is the answer: to give clarity. He then asked why we chose AV. We might have assumed, given that the Labour Party had it in its manifesto, that it would support it. That is the first reason. How about this for a second reason? AV is the only system that allows a single constituency member to continue, which was an issue. AV+ includes additional members who do not represent constituencies. So AV maintains that link. And thirdly—

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

Let me explain the third reason. Noble Lords asked for a reason. I am not giving way to the noble and learned Lord until I have given all three reasons. Thirdly, out of all the systems that they voted on in the House of Commons, AV was the one they united on.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble Lord was saying that AV+ did not have a single member constituency. Have I misunderstood him?

[Lord Strathclyde]

In what respect? I said that AV was the one that only had single member constituencies. AV+ has single member constituencies and top-up members on lists. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord knew that.

[Lord Touhig]

If I understood the noble Lord correctly, he said that AV was put forward because there might have been a presumption that the Labour Party, which had supported it in the past, would support it now. But his Prime Minister does not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

The question was this. Why did we propose a referendum on AV? It was not whether we supported AV or not, but whether we supported a referendum or not. The difference is that on this side of the House we can agree to disagree on whether we are in favour of AV, but what unites us is that we believe it should be the people's choice. The Labour Party denies that.

There are a number of ways in which the amendments proposed would get in the way of that clarity. Splitting the question in this way would risk making it unclear to people what they are really being asked to vote on. If someone was to vote no to the first question for example, why would they wish to answer the second question? Would their votes to the second question still count if they had said no to the first? As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, pointed out, there is another disadvantage. The amendment allows for the possibility that people might vote yes to the first question but then not want any of the options presented in the second question, which would lead to uncertainty in interpreting the results as to what the voters really wanted.

Another drafting issue with the amendment is that it does not make it clear that it is a voting system for the UK parliamentary elections to the House of Commons. There is also no indication in these amendments about how any of the other voting systems would work. As I said earlier on, one attraction of the approach taken in our Bill is that, for all the arguments that might take place about how AV works, our Bill sets that out in Clause 9 and Schedule 10. Any questions about how AV works can be resolved by looking at the Bill.

In its report on the referendum question, the Electoral Commission noted that there was a great deal of uncertainty among the public about what the different voting systems were. The Electoral Commission will publish information on the different systems to address that. It is realistic to think that the commission will be able to address this sort of issue where there are two voting systems at stake. But in the context of the commission’s observations, it is not realistic to think the same where five proposed systems are referred to in the question.

A referendum on AV replacing the existing system will give a clear choice to the electorate with the ability for people to express a clear view. Offering more than one choice could lead to an indecisive result and confusion over the interpretation of the results. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rooker]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. I freely admit that this amendment comes from the anorak side of me. This was the most difficult part when I went through the Bill. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, when I read the Bill looking for what I wanted to do, this was the one clause I had most difficulty with. I wanted to raise the issue, but I could not do that in a way that was clear and precise in terms of deploying the argument for a second referendum and how the people had a choice. I could not do that. For 11 years, all my amendments have been drafted for me and I admit to being slightly rusty, but I am learning fast. I then left it alone. All the rest of the stuff in my name is like the other two amendments—very precise and clear so that everybody knows exactly what the issue is. I hope that they were clear tonight. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)]

I remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments 21 to 27 for reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving the amendment. I understand exactly the point she is trying to make—aiming to ensure that the best possible referendum question is posed to the public. I hope to reassure her that an options form of the question was considered and tested by the Electoral Commission when it carried out its assessment of the original question on the Bill. The commission’s report concluded that there are potential drawbacks to using the options style in this particular case. It went on to discuss it and concluded that, in the circumstances, it could not recommend the use of an options question in place of the more traditional yes/no question that meets our criteria for assessing a referendum question.

The commission’s report also noted that an options form of the question could quite significantly affect the nature of referendum campaigning as campaigns will not be straightforward yes and no campaigns but in favour of either option. The question in the Bill as it stands therefore reflects the recommendations of the Electoral Commission which tested the question through focus groups and interviews with members of the public, as well as input from language experts.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Did the Electoral Commission test the question with the first past the post system first and the alternative vote system second or the other way round?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it simply tested the options system as opposed to a yes/no. It concluded that yes/no was a better way than the options. It produced evidence to support that view. Therefore, to change the question in the way the noble Baroness has suggested risks going against the advice of the commission.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Why is yes/no better than this?

[Lord Strathclyde]

The evidence it had was that first it was alien to referendums that we have had in this country and therefore would need new, comprehensive testing. Additionally, proper assessment of such a question would need to take account of further feedback from interested parties, including political parties and other groups and for those reasons, it took the view that the options style was not as good as the yes/no style.

[Baroness McDonagh]

Thank you. I think the noble Lord was giving way to me earlier. Can I ask you to go back a little bit to the issue of the campaigns that you touched on? It would seem to me that the way I am proposing it would be much better for campaigns—all the subjects would get aired rather than what is going to happen. You mentioned in your remarks that it will be the case for and against AV that will be concentrated on, not the strengths of the individual systems. Can you go back to this point and expand on it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am sure that the noble Baroness believes that the option system is better, but the commission’s report noted that an options form of the question could quite significantly affect the nature of the referendum campaign, as campaigns will not be straightforward yes and no campaigns but in favour of either option. The commission believes that for the sake of clarity it is better to campaign on a yes or no basis.

[Lord Sewel]

It is not a matter of asking yes or no; it is a matter of asking what the substance is behind yes or no, which is either first past the post or the alternative vote system. That is the difficulty. If you are presenting content in the question that is being put, options are clearly the way of presenting that to the public. In other referendums, the question has been put more simply as do you want something or do you not want something. It is not a matter of wanting one or the other. That is what we are presenting to the people at this time.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I find the argument given by my noble friend Lady McDonagh much more convincing. With respect, she has been involved in a number of elections and referendums, as have a lot of us in this House. With no disrespect to the Electoral Commission, until recently it did not have anyone on it who had either been elected to anything or been involved actively in elections or referendums. It is only very recently, with a change in the law, that we have had people on the Electoral Commission who know what they are talking about in relation to elections and referendums. Surely the argument given by my noble friend is right. Yes is a positive argument and no is a negative argument. Therefore, yes is seen to be something far more attractive than no. If you are putting the option, you have to explain the option; you do not just go around sloganising. You have to explain in more detail what first past the post or the alternative vote is about. That is a much more sensible suggestion to put forward. I urge the Leader of the House to think carefully about that and not just to accept something because the Electoral Commission has said it. There is a tendency in both Houses for some people just accepting things because the commission says it. Now we have changed the commission’s composition and added to it some people who know what they are talking about with regard to elections and referendums. Its suggestions in future will be better informed. But will the Leader of the House listen to my noble friend on this?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we have decided to support the findings of the Electoral Commission.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I just want some clarity. The way in which the noble Lord put it when asked the question appeared to state an analytical conclusion by the Electoral Commission—that it thinks that the options route is alien to how it has been done in the past and would lead to a different sort of campaign. That all sounds like analysis. Did I understand the noble Lord to say that there had been focus groups and testing by the Electoral Commission? If there were such focus groups and testing, are the results of that published? If so, where can we find it—and if it is not, could he publish it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, if it is available to be published, I shall certainly see to it that it is done.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

Is the noble Lord saying that it is focus groups and testing?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords, I said in my original answer that the question posed was tested with focus groups and interviews with members of the public as well as input from language experts.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

And will he publish it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I have already said that I would if it was available.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The noble Lord says, “If it is available”, but there must be a record of it.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, obviously I cannot commit myself to publishing something if it is unavailable. I said that if it was available, I would make sure that it was published.

[Baroness McDonagh]

I thank the noble Lord. I intend to withdraw my amendment at this stage. I agree that the referendum should be held, and I think that it is right to have this debate, but I shall think about his comments. If we are not careful, we will have a very one-sided debate in the referendum. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

We have had no agreement to go beyond 10 o’clock this evening. It is now 10 o’clock, and it is the tradition of this House that we cease proceedings at 10 pm unless there is an agreement. I am more than happy to discuss these matters through the usual channels. I see two previous Chief Whips and am sure they would observe that that is the case.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I agree, but if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, wishes to continue, I shall be happy to carry on. It will not take long.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To put it bluntly, I would prefer to go to bed. I do not know whether that suits noble Lords.

[Lord Strathclyde]

If noble Lords opposite have had enough, I am happy with that and we can resume the House. But if the noble Lord wants to move his amendment, we would be happy to carry on.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I am prepared to be helpful. If the House wishes to adjourn now we could regroup the next two amendments, which would help the House as two debates could be combined. I am perfectly happy with that.

Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord McNally]

That the debates on the Motions in the names of Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Janvrin set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.

Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, effectively accuses this side of the House of procedural malpractice, he might care to consider that the coalition is introducing radical proposals for constitutional reform without any authority to do so from the electors. He might also care to consider that the Bill comes to us from the other place with very important parts of it entirely unexamined, both in Committee and on Report. Against that background, perhaps he would accept that it is the duty of the Opposition to scrutinise this legislation exhaustively.

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

My Lords, we are in danger of having a rerun of Second Reading: let us not to do that. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for what he said. I completely agree with much, although not all, of it. He spotted that the Motion before us is defective and would not do what the noble Baroness intends. I am glad that he confirmed that, if there is a vote, he will not be able to support the Motion. I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, who spoke extremely well, and my noble friend Lord Tyler, who made some important points about the Bill, some of which I will return to.

Most Peers came here to attend the Committee on the Bill. Instead, we have had yet another procedural device. I am not questioning the motives of the noble Baroness. I am sure that she believes that it should be two Bills rather than one. However, to put that Motion now gives the impression that noble Lords opposite do not want to engage in the proper debate in Committee that I hope we will have in a moment.

Noble Lords opposite do huff and puff rather too much. Only a few months ago, earlier this year, we had the previous Government’s Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. Noble Lords opposite will remember that legislation joyously. It included provisions on no fewer than 13 different subjects ranging from a referendum on the alternative vote to freedom of information, the removal of hereditary peers and the ratification of treaties. Not one Peer opposite—including the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—jumped up with great outrage about how wrong it was to do that. It was not wrong then, and it is not wrong now.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Strathclyde]

No, please—I did not want to tempt the noble Baroness to her feet for more outrage.

Noble Lords opposite also sought to progress that legislation with unseemly haste. Was that politically expedient? I cannot possibly guess their original motive. So it is somewhat surprising to hear it suggested today that a referendum on the alternative vote merits a stand-alone Bill. If our Bill is a car crash, their Bill was a multiple pile-up.

My noble friend Lord McNally and I made it clear during the Second Reading that there are compelling reasons why the Bill before the House takes the form that it does—as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I am sure knows. The two parts of the Bill are fundamentally related: both concern how MPs are elected to another place. Together, they concern arrangements for the next general election in 2015, and as such merit consideration in the round, as a package. It would not make sense to prioritise reform of the voting system while leaving the fundamental unfairness in constituencies untouched. Nor would it make sense to tackle unfair boundaries but deny the public the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the voting system—something that noble Lords opposite promised in their own manifesto.

It is simply not the case that the referendum can be separated from the boundary reviews, which can then be scrutinised at leisure. Current boundaries in England are 10 years out of date, and it is not unreasonable that they should not be 15 years out of date at the next election. The Boundary Commission must be allowed to get on with its reviews so that there is time for proper consultation on boundary recommendations and all concerned are given an adequate period to prepare for a general election on the new constituency boundaries.

The measures in the Bill were foreshadowed in our coalition agreement. They form the key plank in our commitment to reform this country’s political system, having been endorsed in another place.

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that he is wrong in one of the assertions he makes? Many parliamentary constituency boundaries were changed in 2005—my previous one in particular.

[Lord Strathclyde]

All of them may not be out of date, but many are. We are going to put that fundamental unfairness right. Surely the noble Lords opposite are not supporting the continuation of unfairness.

A couple of weeks ago this House gave the Bill a Second Reading. I believe that, in doing so, the House accepted its general principles and indeed its overall architecture. The House accepted it as one Bill. We are due to go into Committee on the Bill, in its entirety, this afternoon. Some noble Lords have put down amendments to the Bill. That is the normal way that we go about scrutinising legislation in this House. The instruction tabled by the noble Baroness would pre-empt that scrutiny process. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, having heard this short debate, and having made her point, will now withdraw the Motion.

[Baroness McDonagh]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I would like to refer to a couple of the points. I say to noble Lords opposite that the Motion would not discard Part 2 of the Bill and that every bit of work done up to now would remain. It would simply allow us the opportunity to have proper scrutiny.

I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: please do not tell us that we do not wish to debate the Bill. When we were debating it, there was not one Conservative Member on the Benches opposite. The Motion is a genuine and constructive attempt to make both Bills work, and I am sorry that the Government have not seen it as such. I think that it would make it much easier to pass the legislation, but I will not be pressing it to a vote. However, I make it clear that, like many other Back-Benchers, I will not take criticism or be harried for fully discharging our responsibility to scrutinise the legislation properly. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, we have had a good and very important debate for precisely the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Everyone agrees that there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny, no White Paper and no public consultation. What my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours is saying is this: yes, let us have a referendum on an alternative vote system—no doubt he would say that we should have it within a specified period—but, before it, let us work out what the best alternative vote system is. He identifies three systems, or perhaps four. The first is the one used in Queensland, Australia. You do not have to use all your votes; you can use just one. He pointed to the fact that sometimes three-quarters of those who vote do not use anything other than their first vote. He then pointed to the federal system in Australia, where you have to use all your votes. The noble Lord, Lord Deben—I am sorry, the artist formerly know as John Selwyn Gummer—pointed to the fact that that gives rise to difficulties. The third system my noble friend cited is that used in the London mayoral elections, where you identify the top two, and then all the second preferences are distributed between number one and number two.

All of those are alternative vote systems. Which is best? I have no idea. The one that the Government have adopted—I know not why; they have not said—is the one used in Queensland. Is it right that we put before the British people a scheme that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, describes as the worst? He says it is the worst, for reasons I do not properly understand, and he hopes that that will lead to the rejection of the alternative vote system.

If we are going to change the constitution, we need a plausible process, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave. There needs to be some thought given to what is the best alternative vote system if there is to be a referendum. The idea that the nation has to accept what was agreed over those five days as the only one is—with the greatest respect to the coalition—arrogant. I understand politics, but people can say no to politics as the reason for something happening.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has thrown a sharp light on the consequences of trying to carry out a constitutional change as a piece of politics, like this. The right thing to do is to have a process by which there would be proper consideration of which of the AV systems is the best. As I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggests, a commission of inquiry should be set up. It would report to Parliament and, in the light of the report, Parliament would then, by a resolution, decide which of the alternative vote systems to put to the public in a referendum. In this way it would capture what the coalition wants to do, but it would do it in a plausible and sensible way, and we would not be steam-rollered into doing it in a way for which we have no explanation.

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

The noble and learned Lord is accusing the Government of not having careful thought and of being outrageous, yet only a few months ago he supported the Labour Party manifesto, which had at its core support for AV.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

We lost. In those circumstances, I do not think that relying on what we did justifies you doing the wrong thing.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I never voted in relation to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. I assume the system was the one that is now being put forward.

If we do not have a proper, independent debate—which I believe will carry much more weight with the public—then we have to have the debate here as to which is the right system. It is a distressing aspect of this debate, but inevitably when we raise such issues, instead of the other side engaging with the issues, we get the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, appearing to say to the Cross Benches—I have not read Hansard yet, which I will check—“If you vote in favour of procedural manoeuvre, it’ll be 100 per cent elected”. What conclusion are we supposed to draw from that? Then the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, appeared to say, “We have debated this long enough. Let us get on with it”. Let us either debate the issues, or let us have a commission of inquiry to look into what is the right AV system in the context of a timetable, so that the AV vote will take place, but it will be on the basis of proper information. The Front Bench will support the amendment if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, puts it to a vote.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, perhaps there should be a word from this side. My noble friend Lord Deben said that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for introducing the amendment; I agree with him. I thank him for his support because he said that he did not agree with it and, as he is not in favour of referendums at all, that is a bold step. I also thank my noble friend Lord Rennard for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that it was sheer folly to go down this route without an inquiry. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that there should be an inquiry, that there are deficiencies in AV, and that other systems should be examined. All this may be true. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that later in Committee he would invite the House to vote on other systems. I do not want to encourage him to do so, but that must be the right way of dealing with these issues.

The amendment seeks an inquiry but we believe that on an issue as fundamental as voting reform the public need to be given a clear choice which will produce an equally clear result. For all the arguments that may take place about how AV works, the attraction of the approach that we have taken is that the Bill sets it out in Clause 9 and Schedule 10. Any questions about how AV works or what form of AV is proposed can be resolved by looking at the Bill. That would not be the case with these amendments and the result would therefore be a lack of clarity, voter confusion and scope for misrepresentation about the merits of the various systems during the campaign.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

As I understand the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—and we should be clear about this—the effect of the resolutions he proposes is that the Bill will then contain one system of AV upon which the public would vote. The noble Lord’s points about clarity do not bite.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I stand by what I say unless the noble Lord can produce further amendments reflecting how he believes the various systems of AV should be explained in the Bill. We have done so. We have done the work and we have explained in Clause 9 and Schedule 10 exactly how it works.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

It is not necessary to have the AV system in the Bill: that is a matter for the inquiry to deal with.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord’s amendments seek to determine that crucial matters relating to the referendum should be set out in an order made by the Secretary of State instead of in the Bill. How often have we heard that such issues should be debated during the course of the Bill rather than by using secondary legislation—yet here the noble Lord is arguing for secondary legislation?

The order could be made only after an inquiry had been conducted by the committee of inquiry established specifically for that purpose and would then need to be approved by affirmative resolution. This would inevitably lead to delay. It would certainly delay the 5 May referendum, possibly by a considerable period. If the amendment was carried the Bill would state that there is going to be a referendum on a matter of considerable constitutional significance but it would give no date; nor would it provide any mechanism for settling the date. Having made a firm commitment to hold the referendum next year, we would therefore be in limbo. I cannot imagine that the public would be prepared to accept that.

Quite how the process would work is unclear from the amendments. No timescale is proposed within which the committee of inquiry should report and there is no indication of who should sit on the committee. It is not clear what the extent of its powers would be nor whether its recommendations would be binding on the Government. Not only would these amendments delay a decision being made on the voting system, but they would do so unnecessarily.

The Bill’s passage through Parliament would mean that Parliament had already decided on all aspects of the Bill. Parliament is deciding on whether or not there should be a referendum on the alternative voting system and, if it passes the Bill, it should be content to let the public decide which voting system they want. The Bill offers clarity and I urge the Committee to accept it. I also urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

Indeed, that is what the manifesto said and—to quote my noble friend Lord Grocott—“We lost”. Yes, it was October—the noble Lord is right. It was not May though and it was not 5 May. It was October and we said six months; our amendment says between six months and 18 months, so October might well be the date but we think it is better to give more time because it provides a sensible window for an information campaign to be executed. I remind the Committee that when New Zealand changed its voting system in the early 1990s, there was a year-long information campaign. Surely it would be better to have a proper information campaign about the alternatives—the choices that are to be made—which lasts for some time and actually gets through to people, rather than to rush it through in May.

Consultation by the Electoral Commission on the referendum question revealed the extent of people’s limited knowledge of the two voting systems and how they work. That is not disparaging of the electorate. Of course it is not. As has been said in this debate, most people’s knowledge of politics is voting once a year, or less than that. If the Government are serious in their claim to seek to hand power back to people, surely it is correct that we enable the people to make informed choices. We have also to give officials and interested participants adequate time to provide this information. Our worry is that the timetable proposed by the Bill does not allow for this to happen.

I turn now to a further argument. Whether this referendum on AV is a referendum on a miserable little compromise or whether it is—as the more optimistic noble Lord, Lord McNally, insists—a battle between two great armies that will be lined up at either side of this fundamental debate, what my noble friend Lady Liddell said just now is well worth listening to. There will be public holidays and a royal wedding just on the eve of this referendum. It will be difficult enough to get people involved in the referendum even if there were no public holidays, or no royal wedding. Is it seriously thought that there will be the necessary and proper publicity before the referendum, if it is held on 5 May, with all the media interest and natural excitement about the royal wedding? It seems to us that that is further argument—though not enough on its own—to ask the Government just to think again. If they cannot give an explanation, which they have not up to now, as to why it has to be as soon as 5 May 2011 they should just reconsider. No one would criticise them if they reconsider, perhaps take a more sensible view and say that this referendum should take place after a longer period has elapsed.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, for the way that he moved his amendment. In fact, if he had stopped after about a minute he would have made some very compelling points because he said it was elegant and clear, and his amendment was. We then had a debate for nearly an hour and a half and we lost a lot of that initial clarity. He was my MP. He never bothered to canvass me, perhaps because he realised that I did not have a vote. If he and I, perhaps joined by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, were to walk down Loudoun Street in Mauchline and perhaps slip into Poosie Nansie’s—three lairds together—those who were there would be extremely suspicious and they would smell a rat if they thought that we were all on the same side, although of course we are on many things.

We have had a series of amendments. I totally accept what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about degrouping his amendments—that is within the rules. He may find that my answers are not dramatically different but we shall come to his amendments in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Could the noble Lord explain how the saving has suddenly doubled? Exactly what does that involve? Why will it save so much more? That is certainly not the figure that was given to the Scottish Government. He just pulled it out of a hat without any explanation. It would be helpful if he could explain.

[Lord Strathclyde]

I would not dream of pulling that figure out of a hat. The figure that I have been given by the department’s advisers is £30 million across all polls. It is a substantial amount of money.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

It is well recorded that if you hold elections and a referendum on the same day there is the possibility of confusion. If by holding them on the same day there will a saving of £30 million, is the noble Lord prepared to use any of that money to ensure that the polling stations are properly staffed and a proper campaign of information is made available to the electorate, so that the confusion that was experienced in Scotland the last time this happened does not occur again across the whole of the UK?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I will come to the question of confusion in the polling booths in 2007 in a moment. The point is that, in principle, I do not believe that people will be confused by virtue of having to vote on different issues at the same time. On top of that, the referendum question—

[Lord Lipsey]

The noble Lord is about to move off the point, raised by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, that I want to follow up, so I am grateful to him for giving way. It is all very well to say that he got the figure of £30 million from his officials, but they previously gave a figure of £15 million. Therefore, could the noble Lord kindly put in the Library a full explanation of both figures and what they involve, so that the House can have a factual basis on which to make its judgments?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am happy to do whatever I can to bring clarity to this debate and I am happy to do what the noble Lord suggests. The saving has doubled because it is across all the polls on 5 May; £30 million is the net figure.

The referendum question is straightforward. It has been fully tested by the Electoral Commission and has been amended to incorporate its recommendations. The question will enable the electorate to understand the choice that they are being asked to make and to express their views clearly. Several noble Lords said that a national referendum will overshadow the devolved and local elections. However, having seen those elections, which noble Lords opposite experienced, I simply cannot imagine that that will be the case. There will be two different campaigns, run at different levels, over the run-up to 5 May. Given the important issues that are to be voted on at devolved and local levels, I do not see why those issues should be swept to one side simply because a national poll on a different issue will be held at the same time. I just do not believe it.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, says that there will be confusion but there is no evidence for that. There will be a national campaign and I believe that this will increase the turnout. As far as being confused on the franchise, which the noble Lord raised, the Electoral Commission will make voting eligibility utterly clear in the information that it distributes. Furthermore, polling cards will be sent to every voter saying which polls they can vote in.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

On the issue of eligibility, can the noble Lord ensure that, prior to next week’s debate, we will actually have the registration figures for inner-city constituencies, an undertaking that I was given at the meeting that he attended with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the Bill team?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, if the figures can be produced, they will be produced for the noble Lord to see.

Furthermore on this question of confusion, the Electoral Commission—as my noble friend Lord Rennard pointed out—has advised that it is possible to successfully deliver these different polls on 5 May. The commission has issued briefing throughout the passage of this Bill in another place. It concluded that the Bill contains the necessary provisions for the combination of the referendum poll with the scheduled election, and says that it is satisfied that the technical issues it has identified with these provisions to date have been addressed by the Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, went on to explain that the system failed in the Scottish elections in 2007. I say, slightly tangentially to this when it comes to confusion, that I now live in the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for one election, I live in the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for another and I am in a third constituency for the European elections. We get used to this. It may not be ideal but, if there has ever been any confusion about different elections being voted on at different times with different systems, they are entirely decisions made by noble Lords opposite. We are not adding to the confusion.

As the noble Lord knows, there was an inquiry by Ron Gould, who at the time said that the problem in 2007 was that there were two votes on the same ballot paper. That is what confused so many people. That is not going to be the case here. Gould has, furthermore, said:

“I do not believe that the same factors which led to voter confusion and the large number of rejected ballots at the last Scottish … elections would arise if both the Parliamentary Election and the Referendum were held on the same date”.

That is an authoritative statement.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

In the interests of fully reporting Mr Gould’s position, can the Leader of the House confirm that Gould confirmed his position in evidence to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee that he would not recommend the conduct of two ballots on the one date, given his experience in his investigation into what happened in Scotland? He has not changed his position from the recommendation. I accept that the noble Lord has quoted him but he should give the full context of what he said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has now given that context but, equally, that he does not disagree with the quotations that I have given.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I refer the noble Lord to page 220 of the Bill:

“List of votes marked by presiding officer

32 (1) If the counting officer thinks fit, a single list of votes marked by the presiding officer may be used in respect of—

(a) votes marked on referendum ballot papers,

(b) votes marked on constituency ballot papers, and

(c) votes marked on regional ballot papers.

(2) Where a person’s entry in that list does not relate to all three kinds of ballot paper, the entry must identify each kind to which it relates”.

All of this has to be carried out during the voting process, marking on the list which ballot paper it relates to. That will take a large number of minutes for everyone who comes in, if only one list is used. Has the Leader of the House really considered this? Can he explain precisely how this will work?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, this whole process will involve negotiation, discussion and a debate which is taking place between the Electoral Commission and the various polling authorities right across the country to ensure that people can vote, have time to vote and understand the different elections in which they are voting. We do not believe—we stand by this fact—that there will be any confusion on this at all. Setting the date in legislation gives certainty to those involved in the planning and the campaigning. Moreover, if this amendment were carried, the Bill would say that there is going to be a referendum on a matter of—

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

This is a very simple point amid the complex issues that we have been discussing. Given that there is this complexity, why did the Government not consult the Scottish Government before coming to that conclusion?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, a decision was made on a national poll and to announce that to the House of Commons. That is what happened. Therefore, there was no time to have a great consultation with the Scottish Government. Mutual respect is a great idea and is something that we should always carry out, but if there was no reason not to have the referendum on 5 May, it was entirely right for the Government to make that decision and to make that announcement.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

The noble Lord is being extremely generous and I am very grateful for that, but the conclusion to which I come from the answer that he has given is that he does not trust the Scottish Government. Is that the case?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have no idea where the noble Baroness found that; of course, it is not true. I very much respect the House of Commons and think that it was entirely right and appropriate for that announcement to be made first in the House of Commons.

Other amendments are grouped with this one, including that spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, which proposes that this process should be spread between six and 18 months. However, I have to tell him and noble Lords opposite that holding this referendum is a government priority as it is time to give the people their say on how they should elect their parliamentary representatives. That goes to the heart of the Bill and to the heart of the decision to hold this poll on 5 May. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I am in a genuine dilemma about what to do. I know that many noble Lords would like to go to dinner. The Leader of the House and I do not need to go to dinner as, like camels, we can survive for weeks on the resources that we have accumulated over the years. However, this is a serious matter. This is the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has said that he agrees with every word that I have said. That in itself must be a powerful argument for pressing this to a vote. Astonishing revelations have been made in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is not present; he does need his dinner. Given what he used to feed his daughter, it is probably a rather speedy repast. He said that savings of £15 million would be made. Within an hour, the figure escalated to £30 million. That is the most astonishing escalation, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey pointed out. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, were still here as I would point out to him that a great deal more could be saved by not having the referendum at all, which is probably what most of us in this House want, and probably most in another place as well.

My noble friend Lord O’Neill put forward a convincing argument. I had forgotten to say in my introduction that the Scottish Parliament cleared the way for the Scottish vote to be a stand-alone election by moving the local government elections to a year later. That is a powerful argument. He also reminded me of the argument of contamination and how people vote in a referendum. As my noble friend said, in 1979 we lost the referendum probably because the Government were unpopular, whereas in 1997 we won probably because the Government were very popular. Tony Blair was the most popular Prime Minister in our lifetime. Contamination takes place, and that contamination will be even worse when this referendum is held.

Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Strathclyde]

That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 7 December to allow the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.

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

My Lords, in light of the extremely unusual amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, it may be helpful if I say a few words to set out the Government’s position.

The Motion in my name seeks the agreement of the House to suspend Standing Order 46 on Tuesday 7 December to allow the remaining stages of the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill to be taken formally immediately after Second Reading. This is necessary because Standing Order 46 prevents more than one stage of a Bill being taken in any one day. This is a perfectly standard Motion for a Bill that has been certified as a money Bill by Mr Speaker in another place.

The established practice of the House in respect of money Bills is to have a Second Reading debate and then to take the remaining stages formally. Why do we do this? Because the Parliament Act 1911 restricts the powers of the House of Lords in relation to money Bills. Under that Act this House has one calendar month to pass a money Bill without amendment. If it does not do so, the Bill is given Royal Assent without the agreement of this House. If this House passes amendments, the other place, quite properly, totally disregards them if it chooses to do so. This House does not normally go into Committee on a money Bill because there is no point and successive Governments have chosen not to waste the time of the House in this way.

With the agreement of the usual channels, the Government have set aside a whole day for the Second Reading debate next week. Ultimately, it does not matter whether the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie is agreed to; it does not make any difference. We can amend the Bill, re-amend it or reject it outright, but it will become law anyway in exactly its current form. However—and this is the serious part—apparently, after 99 years of this House respecting both the spirit and the letter of the Parliament Act 1911, the Opposition feel that now is the time to change that. In nearly 100 years this House has never seen an opposition challenge to money Bill procedures under the Parliament Act. The House might forgive the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, for inexperience in such matters if he were new to the Front Bench opposite, but until just seven months ago he was a Minister of the Crown. He and his colleagues know exactly how these things should work.

Only last week the House considered two money Bills. The Opposition did not see fit to challenge the certification of Mr Speaker on those Bills. The noble Lord even responded for the Opposition on one of them. There were no Motions on the Order Paper last week—those Bills were taken through their remaining stages formally, in the normal way, after a Second Reading, with the Opposition’s agreement—so the established practice of dealing with money Bills was perfectly acceptable to the Opposition last week, but not, it seems, this week. Indeed, it is even worse than that. The way in which this House deals with money Bills was perfectly acceptable to the Opposition when they were in Government. Between 1997 and 2010, this House considered a total of 64 Bills that were certified as money Bills by Mr Speaker in the other place. Over 40 per cent of them were in the last Parliament alone. We disagreed with many of these Bills; we felt that the financial policies of the party opposite would lead the country to financial ruin, as it almost did, but how many of these Bills were taken through substantive stages after Second Reading, or were subject to a challenge from the then Opposition on grounds of process? None at all. It was not seen as this House’s way of doing things, so why is it seen as the way for us to proceed now?

There is a feeling from this side of the House of, “Here we go again”. The Opposition are clearly set on continuing their procedural mischief-making. A clear pattern has emerged. Back in June we had a Motion to refer the Local Government Bill to the Examiners, two weeks ago we had a similar Motion on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, today we have an unprecedented Motion on a money Bill, and tomorrow yet another unprecedented procedural Motion is due to appear on the Order Paper.

A few weeks ago I asked from this Dispatch Box whether the party opposite wanted to be a serious party of opposition, or whether it wanted to see the kinds of procedural ploys, wheezes and games that we see again today. The answer is becoming increasingly clear—the party opposite would prefer to manufacture time-wasting debates than to get on with the important business of the Public Bodies Bill on today’s Order Paper. They want to make this place like another place: a House that spends hour after hour on procedural debate. I have to tell the noble Lord that this vision for the House is not shared by the majority of noble Lords.

There is no issue, and there is no need to challenge the way in which this House deals with money Bills; this is nothing but an attempt at opportunism. I am sure that noble Lords will see it for what it is, and I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, this is a very difficult situation. I am totally convinced that this is not a money Bill and it is disgraceful that it is being presented as such. However, we are faced with a different problem: the certification by the Speaker that it is a money Bill. I fully agree with my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham who says that this would set an unfortunate precedent. I fully agree with those who say that this Bill deserves a proper examination in Committee. However, we are faced with a fact, which is that it has been certified as a money Bill.

We should be thinking about whether there is some way in which we can have a proper discussion—perhaps in a Joint Committee—on what a money Bill is, because that is the problem. It is open to abuse if one side says that this is a money Bill and the other side says it is not. We need to have a proper discussion of what a money Bill is and get it settled once and for all.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it might be useful if I added a few thoughts from the Government Front Bench. I totally respect all of those who spoke in favour of the Bill and those who had problems on issues with the Bill. At some moments it sounded as if we had already started the Second Reading of the Bill rather than dealing with the Motion on the Order Paper. I have no detailed view on the different aspects of the Bill. The right time to deal with those would be on Second Reading.

The point in my introduction was made—if I may say so—far more ably by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It does not matter if we have this Committee stage. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, we can explore, we can advise, we can amend, we can even reject, and we can ask the House of Commons to think again. The House of Commons is under no obligation whatever to deal with any of these issues. That is the nub of my argument. There is no point doing any of these things because it is a waste of our time. Let us spend our precious time on things that are useful and have an impact rather than on those that do not. I have very little further to add and in light of what I and others have said, I call upon the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, it is quite clear—to me at any rate—that there is a genuine issue here. One could argue whether the Speaker should or should not have certified it. The fact is that he did certify it and, therefore, certain consequences flow from that, which I accept. However, the danger as it is perceived, certainly by me, and, I suspect, by many on this side, is that that certification will become too gross, happen too often and be too restrictive as far as this House is concerned.

This issue is important in relation to this Bill. However, it is even more important in relation to a whole host of other Bills coming up. If one wishes to certify something as a money Bill, you can invariably find some excuse for doing so, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said. There is no point in the noble Lord shaking his head. He knows that as well as I do. So I ask him very simply: can he put his considerable weight behind an attempt to get some clarification on what is or is not a money Bill by negotiations or discussions between this House and the other place? Otherwise, we will have this issue coming up again and again, which would be extraordinarily unhealthy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My question is very much along the same lines. It goes to the root of the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Is she right when she says that the mere fact of a Bill involving public expenditure makes it possible for it to be certified as a money Bill? If that is so, then it is extremely serious and of massive constitutional relevance.

Is it then the case—I do not have the wording of the 1911 Act before me—that since 1911 it has been a matter of restraint not to certify possibly thousands of Bills that might have been money Bills but for good reason have not been so regarded? Am I right in thinking that although the 1911 Act very considerably curtails the effect of any amendment made by this House, there is not one word in it that suggests that we should not discuss a money Bill?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, that is precisely why the Government have allocated a whole day for discussion and debate on this Bill. There will be a very full Second Reading day on it, especially given this debate. It is right that this House’s voice should be heard, but it cannot be heard more than the Parliament Act 1911 allows. This is so well precedented over the past 99 years that even I, who like history and historical anecdotage in the House of Lords, find this whole debate extraordinary.

The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord asked about the Speaker’s role in all this. Parliament Acts are a long-standing part of the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom. Under the Parliament Act 1911, Mr Speaker is under a statutory duty to certify a Bill a money Bill if, in his opinion, it contains provisions dealing with national taxation, public money, loans or their management. The important words there are “a statutory duty”. It is not a choice; Mr Speaker has no discretion in the matter. That goes to answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who gave the impression that somehow there was discretion in this matter, and that I could say to the Speaker, “On balance, old boy, could you certify rather fewer money Bills?”. That is not the case. It is done on advice given by Mr Speaker’s Clerks on the basis of a statutory provision. The decision to certify this Bill a money Bill is taken entirely by Mr Speaker in another place. We accept the consequences of that because of the 1911 Act and all the precedents that have been set over the past 100 years. In my opening speech, I talked about the 60-odd money Bills that have arisen in the past 13 years. The outrage on the part of noble Lords opposite is extraordinary given that, seven months ago, they were sitting on this side of the House but never once did they scratch their heads and say, “These money Bills are a bit odd. We really should repeal the 1911 Act”.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I do not dispute the fact that, when in government, we issued a number of Bills that were money Bills; I think the noble Lord said that there were 30. However, the difference is that we knew that a Bill had been certified a money Bill before it ended its legislative process in the House of Commons. Can the noble Lord tell me the last occasion on which a Bill was certified a money Bill at the very end of its legislative process in the House of Commons? That is a big distinction, as the House of Commons understood that this Bill would go through all its legislative process in this Chamber.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am very happy to answer questions on this from other noble Lords as well, if they so wish. However, I find it very difficult to help the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition on this matter. It is as if noble Lords assume that I had greater knowledge than I have of what decisions were being taken in another place on the certification of money Bills, or when the decision was taken. My understanding is that it is a decision not of the Government but of Mr Speaker, taken on advice from his Clerks. I dare say that the stage at which he makes that decision is up to the internal procedures of another place. The point about this House is that we have to deal with the effects of the decision that has been taken in another place. We have no discretion in the matter. If it is certified a money Bill, a money Bill it is. If it is a money Bill, whatever we do to it matters not a jot because another place can ignore that comprehensively.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the noble Lord ensure, not just as leader of the government party, but as Leader of the whole House, that future legislation, such as social security legislation, will not come up here with the imprimatur that means that we cannot discuss disability issues and the like?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is very hard to answer that question as Leader of the whole House without looking back in the mists of time at the reasons for the 1911 Act. The reason we have had the privilege of dealing with monetary and taxation legislation is in the history of 100 years ago. With the best will in the world, I have no intention of reopening that any more than any of my predecessors have done over the last 99 years.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Why was the climate change Bill not a money Bill?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I suppose it was because Mr Speaker was not advised by his Clerks that it was a money Bill. If it had been a money Bill, we would have disposed of it rather more quickly than we did.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this debate has been interesting, but mostly not about the substance of the amendment that was moved. Most noble Lords, I think, were exercised about the definition of a money Bill. I made clear when I moved my amendment that, except for the purposes of the amendment, it has been certified a money Bill, and I do not seek to challenge that, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, suggested.

On the definition of a money Bill, the preamble to the bit about taxation et cetera talks about measures that contain “only provisions dealing with” certain issues. One of the points that arise from this particular example is whether the ability to corral a few things that are only about taxation, and not to have them as you might naturally otherwise have them—as part of a broader Bill—opens up the possibility of getting more money Bills certified than would otherwise be the case. However, I agree with the range of speakers—the noble Lords, Lord Richard, Lord Grenfell and Lord Elystan-Morgan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—who say that it would be good to have some sort of process to try and better understand when a money Bill is a money Bill and what the rules are that apply to that.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that this is all a waste of time and that it is pointless, but if he read the 2007 version of the Companion, he would see that paragraph 7.189, on money Bills, says:

“On a few occasions minor amendments have been made by the Lords to such bills and have been accepted by the Commons”.

This presumption that it is all a waste of time, that nothing could ever happen that could change the Bill, is simply not the case. Even if it were, if it was felt that matters should be pressed on the Government in relation to a Bill, why should we not avail ourselves of the opportunity to do so? I stress that my amendment does not seek to change the rules at all or to say that the House of Commons Speaker was wrong in certifying it as a money Bill; it merely seeks to take advantage of what the Companion enables us to do as a House.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that she did not understand if this did not lead anywhere. In any event—this is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as well—we will have a full day on a Second Reading debate. However, there is a difference between a debate on the Bill at Second Reading and in Committee, as all noble Lords know. The Committee stage is an iterative process, a chance to press the Minister in detail on a range of points. A one-day Second Reading does not provide the same facility. It provides an opportunity for some broad debate but not for the detailed scrutiny that we believe this Bill requires.

As ever, my noble friend Lady Hollis got it absolutely right; if we do not take this opportunity to try to secure at least a Committee stage on this money Bill, what hope is there for dealing with a raft of very profound provisions coming down the track that the Government would corral in such a way that the Speaker would designate them money Bills?

I believe that the Deputy Chief Whip wishes to speak.

Business of the House

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Young of Graffham set down for today shall be limited to 3½ hours and that in the name of Viscount Bridgeman to 1½ hours.

Motion agreed.

Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the draft Orders and Regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.

Motions agreed.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 9, Clauses 7 to 19, Schedules 1 to 8, Schedules 10 and 11.

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

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. It may be helpful if I give the House a brief explanation because it replaces a Motion that had been tabled and was due to be agreed yesterday. However, following constructive discussions earlier this week with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Government withdrew the original Order of Consideration Motion on the Bill, and we have now come forward with the revised Order of Consideration Motion before the House today. The noble and learned Lord made the case that the revised order of consideration would be for the benefit of the House as a whole in structuring discussion on the Bill and would help to speed its passage. I was happy to agree and I am sure that the whole House will be receptive to these propositions.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I express my gratitude to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his constructive approach to this. The revised Motion will help the constructive discussion of the Bill, which will require the responsible scrutiny that I know the House will give it. That scrutiny will necessarily be long, but I am sure that it will be worth while.

NATO Summit

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to repeat a Statement on NATO which the Prime Minister has made this afternoon in another place. The Statement is as follows.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the NATO summit in Lisbon. No one can doubt that NATO has played a critical role in preserving peace in Europe since it was founded in 1949. But the test for NATO now is whether it can meet the challenges of the present and future. That means real change—not just signing communiqués about change but showing real political will to bring those changes about.

I believe that NATO can be just as relevant for protecting our security in the future as it has been in the past and my interventions were focused on that future. There were effectively three summits: a meeting of all the coalition countries involved in Afghanistan, a summit on the planned reform of NATO and a NATO-Russia council. Let me take each in turn.

The first is Afghanistan. The summit with President Karzai, the UN Secretary-General and countries from across the world is a powerful visual reminder that Britain is part of an international coalition of 48 nations in Afghanistan. We are there because the Afghans are not yet capable of securing their own country from terrorists and these terrorists threaten the whole world. So it is for our own national security that we help them.

At the NATO summit, each and every one of the 48 nations in the coalition reaffirmed its ‘enduring commitment’ to the mission in Afghanistan. Britain is the second-largest contributor to that mission, with more than 10,000 troops risking their lives in the most dangerous parts of the country. The arrival of additional ISAF troops in the south has allowed us to transfer Musa Qala and Sangin to the US Marines. That, in turn, has allowed us to focus our forces in central Helmand, sharing the burden more sensibly and removing the overstretch our forces have suffered since 2006. Working alongside Afghan forces, this has helped us to drive the insurgents out of population centres in central Helmand.

We want to transfer security responsibility for districts and provinces to Afghan control as soon as the Afghan security forces are ready. The summit reached important conclusions about the timetable for this transition. It will begin in early 2011 and meet President Karzai’s objective for the Afghan national security forces to lead and conduct security operations in all provinces by the end of 2014. This commitment on transition is entirely consistent with the deadline of 2015 that we have set for the end of British combat operations in Afghanistan.

By 2015, Britain will have played a huge role in the international coalition and made massive sacrifices for a better, safer and stronger Afghanistan. We will have been in Helmand, by some way the toughest part of Afghanistan, for nine years, a period almost as long as the First and Second World Wars combined. Last week, we lost the 100th member of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan this year. This is the second year running that we have reached such a tragic milestone. The bravery and sacrifice of our forces is making this country safe. But having taken such a huge share of the burden and having performed so magnificently since 2001, the country needs to know that there is an endpoint to all this. So, from 2015, there will not be troops in anything like the numbers there are now, and crucially, they will not be in a combat role. That is a firm commitment and a firm deadline which we will meet.

The NATO summit also committed to a long-term relationship with the Government of Afghanistan, and Britain will be at the forefront of this commitment. Beyond the end of combat operations in 2015, we will go on having a relationship with Afghanistan based on aid, development, diplomacy, trade and, if necessary, military training and support.

On the reform of NATO, we agreed a new strategic concept to equip NATO for the security challenges of the 2lst century. Just as in our new national security strategy, NATO will shift its focus and resources still further from the old, Cold Wars of the past to the new unconventional threats of the future, including counterterrorism, cybersecurity, failing states and the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Crucially, NATO agreed to develop a new ballistic missile defence system for Europe. This will help protect the UK and our other European allies from the growing threat from countries like Iran which are developing ballistic missiles. It will be in place by the end of the decade, paid for within NATO’s existing resources.

And just as Britain’s strategic defence and security review set out plans to make the Ministry of Defence much more commercially hard-headed in future, and to adopt a much more aggressive drive for efficiencies, so this summit has agreed significant efficiencies for NATO. These include cutting the number of command posts from 13,000 to less than 9,000, reducing the number of NATO agencies from 14 to three, and ensuring that all decisions taken at this summit are funded from within NATO’s existing resource plans. These changes will save Britain tens of millions of pounds and will allow NATO to focus its efforts on the front line.

There was also discussion at the summit on co-operation between the EU and NATO. It is crazy that, because of procedural wrangling, the only security issue these two organisations can discuss when they meet together is Bosnia. Everyone wants a solution to the Cyprus problem, but we simply should not allow it to go on holding up practical co-operation between the EU and NATO.

It was a very powerful sight to see countries which came together to protect themselves from the Soviet Union now sitting down and discussing sensible co-operation with Russia. And while the Soviet Union broke up years ago, relations between NATO and Russia had been strained in recent years. Two years ago, missile defence for Europe caused a major split in relations with Russia. Now, it is an issue on which we are working together. The NATO-Russia council also agreed practical co-operation on Afghanistan, enabling NATO to use routes through Russia to support our forces on the ground and working together to develop and sustain improved helicopter capabilities for the Afghan security forces.

There will remain challenges in working with Russia. President Obama and I both raised Georgia. Two years after that conflict started, it is time for Russia to abide by the ceasefire agreement and withdraw its troops from Georgian territory. But I judge it right that we do not let this and other bilateral concerns prevent us from working together where it is in our interests to do so. So we will work with Russia on countering drug trafficking, on tackling Islamic extremism, on countering proliferation and in the G8 and G20. The summit also praised the courage that President Obama and President Medvedev have shown in agreeing a new START treaty and agreed that early ratification would be in all our interests.

In 1949, the alliance first said that an attack against one is an attack against all. Today, the threats that we face are different and the world is more uncertain but NATO remains the bedrock of our collective defence. The future of this alliance is vital for our own national security. This summit was focused on that future; on securing an Afghanistan able to look after its own security, reforming NATO for the 21st century, and establishing co-operation with Russia on our vital security interests. Above all, this summit has shown that our alliance remains rock solid and that Britain's commitment to it is as strong as ever. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her constructive approach to this Statement and for her warm words and best wishes for continued co-operation not just with our NATO allies but particularly with Russia. Those of us who witnessed developments over the weekend felt that the summit was a great step forward in the building of that relationship in particular.

I thank the noble Baroness also for beginning with a tribute to those who have served and for a very personal tribute to those who have been injured. I sometimes feel that we concentrate too much on the number of those who have died. There are also those who have come back, some of them with terrible injuries, and we must do everything we can to make sure that they live a full life back in the United Kingdom.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she and her party support the 2015 end date for combat missions. It was important to us to have set that end date, and the support of the Opposition is much appreciated. The noble Baroness asked questions about our timetable and milestones. The whole purpose for us giving a timetable is to maximise the pressure on the ground to be able to do the area-by-area, district-by-district transfer of power from coalition forces to the Afghan army. We will have to see how that develops over the course of the next two years. However, I am hopeful that, even next year, we will see a gradual start of a reduction of combat forces of British troops in Afghanistan. The noble Baroness also asked a question about post-2015 training. I can confirm that it is the intention where required that British troops will still be available to help train the army, the security forces and the police in Afghanistan. I cannot say exactly what their role would be if they came under attack but it is not the intention for these troops to be used in any way as on the front line. The intention is to train the Afghan troops to deal with any problems they encounter themselves.

I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness on reconciliation. We have always said that there is no sole military solution to what is happening in Afghanistan. There needs to be a process of reconciliation. We very much support what President Karzai has said about his willingness to reach out to all of his countrymen, provided that they cut ties with al-Qaeda and violence, and pursue their aims peacefully within Afghanistan’s constitutional framework. We believe that that is the right approach.

Turning to Russia and Russian relations, I am glad that the noble Baroness was able to welcome the new strategic concept and missile defence. On the question of removing tactical nuclear weapons, as the strategic concept makes clear, the greatest responsibility of the alliance is to protect and defend our territory against attack. Deterrence based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities remains a core element of NATO’s overall strategy. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. The UK’s national nuclear deterrent is assigned to the defence of all nations in NATO in accordance with our NATO Article 5 obligations.

This summit was an important step forward. I hope that I have covered all the questions raised by the noble Baroness. If there are any that I have missed, I will follow up in writing.

[Lord Jopling]

My Lords, although it must be right that we do not let bilateral concerns prevent us from working closely with Russia, does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that, at all costs, we must not reduce pressure on Russia with regard to Georgia and the continued occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which the Russians justify by the absurd suggestions that those are two independent states? We must keep up our pressure on that.

Secondly, with regard to the START treaty, again it is welcome that the summit agreed that early ratification would be in all our interests. Will the Government do everything they can to encourage all members of NATO to make those views known in the United States where the President is currently experiencing some unfortunate difficulties with the Congress?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, on that last point, not only is START important, it is vital to our interests. So I can respond positively and say, yes, we will encourage all members of NATO to make representations to make sure that that treaty is ratified.

On the question of Georgia, I agree with my noble friend that it is still an outstanding and difficult issue. We will not do anything to make Russia believe that this is not still an important issue for us. There are a number of other bilateral issues as well. However, we also believe that we should not allow those to hold up these very important talks and the summit. That is why we have gone ahead with them. My noble friend should not be overly concerned, however, that we have forgotten the plight of Georgia; we have not.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, we have come a long way since President Reagan’s star wars concept and President Bush’s proposal for interceptors in Poland and radar installations in the Czech Republic. That is an important matter, as is the improvement in relations with Russia two years since the conflict in Georgia. The Minister said that Russia should withdraw from Georgia, but is that not a pipe dream given the evidence that Russia is militarising part of Abkhazia on the Black Sea? What is being demanded by Russia on missile defence? What will be the decision-making process? Will Russia have some form of veto over the intercepts? Equally, what is being said about Georgia and Ukraine’s membership of NATO? As a result of the agreement, have we decided to put back very indefinitely the applications of Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO? What, if any, movement was there at the summit on the “frozen conflicts”?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am not aware that the last aspect of the noble Lord’s question was discussed. On his key point that the whole situation vis-à-vis Georgia is a pipe dream, we do not share that view and we believe that to be unduly pessimistic. Obviously, discussions are ongoing. In 2008, NATO and the UK condemned Russian military action in the break-away territories. Two years on, Russian troops remain in both separatist regions in considerably higher numbers than before the war. The UK Government strongly support the Geneva talks, which remain the only forum in which all parties to that conflict meet and which help to keep open the prospect of addressing unresolved security and humanitarian issues. We firmly believe that Russia should respect the territorial integrity of Georgia and other states as well as international law and human rights. That is why we call on all parties to play a constructive role in the continued efforts to resolve the conflict. Others may well have argued that we should have used the Georgia talks not to make progress on the greater issue, but that is not the view that we took. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, Georgia is not an issue that we have forgotten.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Will the Minister accept my thanks for the Prime Minister’s expression of impatience about the blockage in the relationship between the EU and NATO? That blockage has gone on for far too long, so I am not surprised that he is impatient about it. Does the Prime Minister, or the noble Lord, discern any indication that those who have been causing this blockage—on one side Turkey and on the other side Cyprus—are thinking of changing their tune? If not, will we deploy our efforts to persuade them to do so?

Secondly, will the noble Lord respond to the question put by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition about tactical nuclear weapons in Europe? While not disputing for one minute what he said in reply about the alliance maintaining the appropriate mix of conventional weapons and strategic nuclear weapons, I do not think that that is the same as working for the removal of tactical nuclear weapons from both sides in Europe. Will the Government support that process—of course, that will require co-operation from the Russian side, too—in the NATO committee that has been set up to look at that? Will the British Government put their weight behind that?

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right to refer to the Prime Minister’s impatience on the issue of EU-NATO talks. On how we will take those matters forward and whether we can expect some progress, the summit declaration calls on the NATO Secretary-General and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, to present proposals for progress before the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in April next year. Ultimate resolution of the EU-NATO impasse is likely to require a settlement in Cyprus, but we believe that practical co-operation can be improved in an incremental and sustainable way, led by Mr Rasmussen and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. We are working with NATO allies, EU partners, Mr Rasmussen and the noble Baroness to ensure that this happens. The point about this is that there is a fundamental change of view, or focus, on this issue, which I very much hope will bear fruit.

I have nothing more to add in response to the noble Lord’s extra question about tactical nuclear weapons. Perhaps it is something that I could follow up in a letter.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, there is clearly much to welcome in this Statement, particularly the greater co-operation with Russia. I have two questions of detail. First, on the drive for greater efficiency within NATO, the cutting of a number of command posts and the reduction of a number of agencies, is there any agreed timescale for those reductions? Secondly, on the question of the additional routes through Russia to support our forces on the ground in Afghanistan, particularly given the attacks on convoys through the Khyber Pass, is the increase in the number of routes significant? Is less fuel and equipment going to come in through Pakistan? Could my noble friend elaborate a little on this whole question?

[Lord Strathclyde]

First, on the question of reducing the number of command posts, the announcement was this weekend, and the intention is that the drive for efficiency should start at once. I believe that we will see progress within a few months. It is important that we should keep the pressure on and that progress should be made. Secondly, the important agreement with Russia that we should have a new overland route for convoys and other aspects of military support is extremely welcome. I cannot add any more to what I have already said on that, and it may not be possible to do so at this stage.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, first, I apologise to noble Lords and to the Leader of the House for not being present at the beginning of this Statement. I am finding it difficult to adjust to the rhythm of the business in this House.

In welcoming this Statement broadly, I press the Leader of the House on one specific issue. On 19 October, on the publication of the strategic security and defence review, following a review of the declaratory policy for nuclear weapons, the Government made a very welcome announcement that they would give assurances to non-nuclear weapon states in broad compliance with their NPT obligations that they would not use nuclear weapons against them. That was broadly welcomed in this House and beyond and brought us into line with the United States. However, in the strategic concept, that assurance is absent from statements on the use of NATO nuclear weapons. Can the noble Lord explain to the House how that came about, as our nuclear weapons and those of the United States are assigned to NATO? We now have two descriptions of when we will use these weapons which are contradictory. Can we expect the Government to press for alignment of declaratory policy in the process that has been signposted in the strategic concept of a further review?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the noble Lord has my sympathy about his having a little difficulty in getting to grips with the rhythm of business, but I am sure that he will get used to it. He is a good attendee, and I am sure that that will happen very soon.

The thrust of the noble Lord’s question is that there is a tension between declared UK government policy on states that do not hold nuclear weapons and that of the strategic concept launched this week by NATO, which does not hold such a position. I do not know whether this tension is cosmetic or real, and I am unable to resolve that at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps I could consider the issue and give a little more thought to it before responding to the noble Lord.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for this Statement and for this early opportunity to talk about the NATO summit in the light of the strategic defence and security review. The question I want to ask has been focused by those who have raised issues about Georgia. Earlier this year, I was fortunate enough to have a meeting with Giorgi Bokeria, the Deputy Foreign Minister in Georgia. It was, I would say, a combative engagement. He was sharp and intelligent. He was critical of the western nations’ response but he was a realist. The point he was really making was that it was not that he expected us somehow to come and invade Russia with him, but that he expected us to be a little clearer on what we were prepared to do in response.

This brings me around to the strategic concept as we now see it. That now has three sections in it, which are about corporate security, crisis intervention and co-operative security. One of the issues in past years has been—we see this in Afghanistan in particular—that crisis intervention and corporate security can stretch the resources of NATO, putting us in a position where it is difficult to know precisely how we move forward. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government are confident that, with the new strategic concept, we can respond effectively in each of those three ways and be clear that we have a response to the sort of questions that the Deputy Foreign Minister was putting to me?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I understand very much the position that the right reverend Prelate found himself in when talking to those who have a clear government interest within Georgia. I, too, have met and discussed the situation with Georgians who feel strongly about it—unsurprisingly, if I may say so. However, like the right reverend Prelate, I have found Georgians with whom I have spoken have a realistic understanding of the West’s role, which is why in answer to an earlier question—I think it was from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—I explained the case of the Geneva talks. That is the best place to resolve these issues, because all those most affected by them are represented in those talks.

The right reverend Prelate also asked whether I was confident that we can deal with our objectives in NATO and that the new strategic concept can deal with them. I am bound to say yes we are. We feel that this is an important step forward, not least in that the summit included so many different countries that are not officially members of NATO but are either supporting us in Afghanistan or, as the Russians themselves did, were playing such an important and distinguished role in the conclusions of this summit.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, while we must always keep up the military pressure in Afghanistan, is it not the case that, now that we have established a deadline of 2015 for the end of combat operations by NATO forces, the weight of our activities should shift to finding a political solution? If that is, as I believe, the policy of the United Kingdom Government, what steps will they take to ensure that Washington is persuaded that it should be their policy too?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ashdown is right. We have long said that the solution to the conflict in Afghanistan is not military. There has to be more to it, combining politics within Afghanistan itself with the support of aid, trade and all the other things that make up creating and building up a country in the modern world. I would not read it as such a difference between our own objectives and those of the United States. In fact, our objectives are not far away from those of NATO and, this weekend, there is an aspirational target for NATO to have achieved the end of conflict by 2014. The fact that we have taken this position on 2015 will not be missed by other countries, which will be asking their own leaders whether it is appropriate that they too should set a similar target.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

Will the Minister reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Ashdown, in his perceptive article in the Times today, that if we are to honour the tremendous sacrifice of many of our young men who have committed themselves to the future of Afghanistan, the need for urgency in the political drive is critical? The countries that need to be involved in this undertaking—Britain, India, Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia—all have their own angle and their own interests in what might happen there. Who is really going to drive this forward? Every one of those countries has an interest and will be disappointed if the conflict there turns into civil war. Who is going to reconcile the situation and drive the political initiative forward?

[Lord Strathclyde]

In the first instance, my Lords, it will be NATO, supported by its key members. My noble friend is right in mentioning all the countries that have a direct interest, including the people of Afghanistan itself. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have all been clear, including the Afghanistan Government, that members of the Taliban and many other groups who want to talk, to play a part in government and to be part of the process of reconciliation are the ones who need to renounce violence, reject al-Qaeda and support the constitutional framework. It is in all our interests that that should be so.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

My Lords, I welcome the reference in the Statement to failing states. Is there any further information that the Minister can provide on the discussions that took place with reference to the importance of failing states to NATO’s overall security position? Might action to help rebuild and reconstruct failing states be one of those areas where there could be more detailed co-operation in future between the European Union and NATO? Was that issue discussed at the summit, or might it be part of the discussions that will lead up to the Foreign Ministers’ meeting in April?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am sure that, on closer examination of the final communiqué, I would be able to find some reference to the subject of failing states. I know that that is an important issue for the noble Lord, and he is right to raise it. That was not the primary purpose of the summit, though; as we have been discussing over the past few minutes, that was to deal with the issue of the new strategic concept and with Afghanistan as well as rebasing the relationship with Russia. Just because these issues were not of primary importance, however, does not mean that they are not in themselves important. NATO is as keen as the rest of us to sort out these problems.