Vol. 726 Monday No. 128 21 March 2011

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Questions Agriculture: Pigs HMS “Endurance” Somalia Disabled People: Employment Wreck Removal Convention Bill First Reading Pensions Bill [HL] Order of Consideration Motion Marine Licensing (Licence Application Appeals) Regulations 2011 Marine Licensing (Notices Appeals) Regulations 2011 Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 Motions to Approve Libya Statement Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Committee (2nd Day) European Council Decision: EUC Report Motion to Approve Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Committee (2nd Day) (Continued) Written Statements Written Answers For column numbers see back page

£3·50 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/index/110321.html

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords £3·50 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords £525 WEEKLY HANSARD Single copies: Commons, £12; Lords £6 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £440; Lords £255 Index: Annual subscriptions: Commons, £125; Lords, £65. LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £40. Standing orders will be accepted.

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN, compiled by the House of Commons, gives details of past and forthcoming business, the work of Committees and general information on legislation, etc. Single copies: £1·50. Annual subscription: £53·50. All prices are inclusive of postage.

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2011, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; email: [email protected] 447 Agriculture: Pigs[21 MARCH 2011] Agriculture: Pigs 448

Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is, for once, House of Lords right to say that it is the same old question. We have heard it from him a number of times in the past. If he Monday, 21 March 2011. is asking whether we should subsidise pig farmers, I have to say that this industry has largely been unsubsidised 2.30 pm and that is how the Government and the pig world would like it to continue. If he is saying that there are Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter. concerns about the welfare standards being higher here than elsewhere, well, welfare standards are higher here than elsewhere. That is something the previous Agriculture: Pigs Government brought in earlier than the rest of Europe, Question but the rest of Europe will be catching up with our standards by January 2013, which we welcome. At that point, there will be a level playing field in terms of 2.36 pm welfare standards. Asked By Lord Hoyle To ask Her Majesty’s Government what help The Countess of Mar: My Lords, prior to foot and they are giving to British pig farmers. mouth disease in 2001, pig farmers were allowed to feed swill to their pigs. Is there any way in which Her Majesty’s Government can reconsider the rules on The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department swill feeding so that swill can be prepared centrally or for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley): regionally by approved swill cookers and then distributed We are committed to supporting and developing all to pigs? The cost of feeding pigs grain is tremendous British farming. This includes working with the pig and is frequently criticised. industry to build on progress by the pig meat task force to improve relationships between farmers and retailers. At an EU level, we are working to improve Lord Henley: The noble Countess is right to point the situation for producers in the medium term, including to that problem, which is why I highlighted the price discussions in the Commission’s new enlarged pig increases in cereal. If the scientific evidence was such meat advisory group. that pig swill could be made safe and reintroduced into the food chain, we would consider it. Obviously we will base any decision entirely on the scientific Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for evidence put before us. that reply. Is he aware that pig producers are losing £20 on every pig sold, that the industry as a whole is losing £3 million per week and that at the same time The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, is the Minister supermarkets are making £60 million a week and aware that a survey by the National Pig Association processors are making £8 million per week? When are last month indicated that 77 per cent of producers the Government going to set up a grocery ombudsman have said that they will go out of production if the whose job will be not only to protect consumers but to present situation continues? If that happened, there ensure that producers, such as British pig producers, would be more imports of lower-welfare pork, some get a fair price for their product? of which is produced in conditions that frankly would be illegal in this country. Will the Government consider bringing together producers, those who represent Lord Henley: My Lords, I am very grateful to the processors and the supermarkets to see whether we noble Lord for raising his Question. He is quite right might together achieve a long-term sustainable supply to point to problems that the pig industry is facing as a chain agreement? result of the rise in the price of cereals and oil and the fact that our welfare standards, of which we ought to be very proud in this country, are a lot higher than Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the right elsewhere. As regards his principal question about the reverend Prelate for highlighting the problems in the grocery code adjudicator, we have made it clear on a whole supply chain. We accept that it is in the retailers’ number of occasions in this House and in another interest to ensure the long-term survival of British place that we intend to bring forward legislation to producers of pork, and we will do all that we can to create a grocery code adjudicator. We hope that we achieve that. There is very little that the Government will be able to produce draft legislation later this year can do directly, but there are a large number of things and take things further forward as we discuss that that we can do indirectly, which is why I referred to draft legislation. the groceries code adjudicator and why I talk about government buying standards and a whole range of other matters. They are all small things, but they Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am afraid it should all help. is the same old question, but it has to be because so little of our national law is now made in your largely redundant Lordships’ House. The question is: to what Baroness Quin: My Lords, in response to my noble extent are Her Majesty’s Government in charge of aid friend Lord Hoyle, the Minister talked about a draft to pig farmers and to what extent is it decided in Bill on the adjudicator later this year. However, given Brussels? the urgency of and indeed the cross-party support for 449 Agriculture: Pigs[LORDS] HMS “Endurance” 450

[BARONESS QUIN] HMS “Endurance” this, can we have an assurance that the adjudicator’s Question office will be up and running this year? Is that the Government’s aim? 2.45 pm Tabled By Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows well, I cannot give the House that assurance. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans All I have said is that we will have a draft Bill this year, they have to replace HMS “Endurance” as the and we will take it from there. Antarctic ice patrol vessel.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does the noble Lord Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on behalf of the noble still believe in the primacy of market forces? Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his Noble Lords: This side! name on the Order Paper.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, if I The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry may say so to the noble Lord, it was the turn of those of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): My Lords, first, I on these Benches. I congratulate my noble friend on am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in the usual high standard of his answers. Does his offering sincere condolences to the families and friends bloodline make him a kinsman of the late Earl of of Lance Corporal Liam Tasker from the Royal Army Emsworth? Veterinary Corps and Lance Corporal Steven McKee from the 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, who were killed on operations in Afghanistan recently, and Lord Henley: My Lords, that is a very difficult one. Private Daniel Prior from 2nd Battalion The Parachute I am very familiar with the works of PG Wodehouse. Regiment, who died of wounds sustained in Afghanistan. Whether I am related to Lord Emsworth is another My thoughts are also with the wounded and I pay matter. tribute to the courage and fortitude with which they face their rehabilitation. Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, may I now ask whether I am pleased to confirm that a commercial ice-breaker, the noble Lord, or rather his party, is still committed to be named HMS “Protector”, will provide the interim to the primacy of market forces? replacement ice patrol ship capability for at least the next three years while we consider the long-term future Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously market forces of HMS “Endurance”. We anticipate a contract for are very important, but there are other things that a the ship’s lease and support being signed soon with the Government can do. I made it clear earlier on that we preferred bidder, GC Rieber Shipping. I will write to do not believe that pig farming should be supported noble Lords who have an interest in this matter when by subsidies. Nor does the pig farming world think the contract has been signed. that it should be supported by subsidies. Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in thanking my noble Lord Borrie: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate friend for his reply, perhaps I may say that I feel sure has drawn attention once more to the urgency of the that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, will be matter of the groceries adjudicator. The Government greatly cheered to hear of this progress. He has, after have the opportunity to insert a provision into the all, been raising the issue regularly since the flooding Public Bodies Bill. They refused to do that a week ago. accident suffered by HMS “Endurance” in the South Surely they should do so now; the Bill is still going Atlantic in 2008. Is my noble friend able to elaborate through the House. further about the past history of the new ice patrol ship to which he referred? Can he tell us why the name “Protector” has been selected? Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will raise this matter on Report on that Bill, but I think my explanation to him in Committee was that Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the name “Protector” we think it better that these things are discussed in has a historic connection with Britain’s Antarctic greater detail when we can find time for an appropriate commitment. It was the name of the ship which preceded Bill. That is why we are committed to a draft Bill. the former “Endurance”in the Atlantic role. “Protector” was the sixth ship to bear the name and completed 13 Antarctic deployments from 1955 to 1968. A seventh Lord Cormack: My Lords, does my noble friend ship of the name saw service as a Falkland Islands accept that the draft Bill to which he refers would be a patrol vessel from 1983 to 1987. This is the eighth time far more welcome addition to the legislative timetable that the name has been used. The intention is to lease than another draft Bill that has recently been talked MV “Polarbjorn”, a Norwegian ice patrol ship for an about? initial period of three years. She will arrive in Portsmouth in May where she will be fitted with specialist military Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that we are going equipment needed for her deployment. I have photographs beyond my pay grade and I will not discuss the differences of HMS “Protector”, which I can show to any noble between draft Bills. Lord who is interested. 451 HMS “Endurance”[21 MARCH 2011] Somalia 452

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I should like to associate of State for Defence has said, the situation now is very these Benches with the condolences offered to the far removed from that of the early 1980s. First, we family and friends of Lance Corporal Liam Tasker, maintain a far more robust and capable force in the Lance Corporal Steven McKee and Private Daniel Falklands to act as a deterrent and to secure our Prior. I should also like to associate these Benches interests there, and that force is able to be reinforced as with the very thoughtful tribute that the Minister has the need arises. Secondly, Argentina is no longer ruled paid to the wounded. by a military junta that is repressive at home and Such a satisfactory Answer raises serious problems aggressive abroad, but of course we maintain robust when asking a further supplementary, but this has contingency plans for times of crisis, and there is no been a very sad affair. It is more than two years since questioning our resolve to defend the Falklands whenever “Endurance” was damaged beyond repair and it will required and from whatever quarter. not be replaced until May. I gather that in the mean time the task is being carried out by HMS “Scott”. Does the Minister agree that that is not satisfactory Somalia since “Scott” is not an ice-breaker, does not carry Question helicopters and is not armed? 2.52 pm Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Asked By Lord Anderson of Swansea noble Lord for his kind words. As he said, HMS “Scott” is not an ice-breaker and she was only able to undertake To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their operations in areas clear of significant ice risk. We assessment of the political situation in Somalia. have yet to determine whether the long-term solution for delivering the ice patrol ship capability will be better The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth met through replacing or repairing HMS “Endurance”. Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My Lords, the political situation in Somalia remains fragile and its Lord Naseby: Having just returned from Chile, I instability presents increasing threats to the region should like to know whether my noble friend is aware and beyond. We continue to work with the Transitional that there is considerable tension in South America, Federal Government and our international and regional particularly in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, which partners to take forward the UN-led Djibouti peace recently refused to give naval bunkering? The news process. We, together with the United States and others, that there is a new ship to take on station is welcome have made clear to the transitional federal institutions so far as it goes, but will he confirm that HMS that there can be no extension of their mandate without “Protector”will be armed equivalently to her predecessor reform to make them more legitimate and representative in order to fulfil the particularly important function of in the eyes of the Somali people. looking after the Falklands and South Georgia? Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, for the past Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the deployment of two decades, Somalia has been a classic failed state, the new ice patrol ship is a separate issue from that of yet within its territory is the autonomous enclave of the security of the Falkland Islands. The permanent Somaliland, the old British protectorate. It is democratic, maritime presence in the Falklands is provided it co-operates with the international community as HMS “Clyde”, the Falkland Islands patrol vessel. The regards pirates, it seeks its own independence and commander of British forces in the Falklands also has international recognition, and wishes to be a member at his disposal either a frigate or a destroyer supported of the Commonwealth. Amid all the turbulence in the by a tanker. Arab world, surely now is the time for the Government to encourage African Commonwealth members to raise the matter in the African Union in the hope that Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I have to take there can be proper international recognition of what issue with the Minister on this. The “Endurance” plays is a successful entity: the old British Somaliland. a key part and, indeed, 29 years ago today, almost, we had a bunch of scrap metal dealers going on to some of the Antarctic territories. Therefore to think of it as Lord Howell of Guildford: The noble Lord is quite not part of a cohesive package for the region is wrong. right to draw attention to this issue, and I recognise I am glad that the ship is being replaced. It is important the stability and achievements of Somaliland. Indeed, that it has the right facilities, and it makes sense to that recognition is reflected in the specific aid for look at the options for the future; I have no difficulty Somaliland that has been given. When it comes to with that. I suppose my final statement is that the recognition as an independent state, while that is something Minister referred to HMS “Protector”, which was a that the Somaliland people have sought, it really is a net layer, as historic. Since I went on board that ship question of getting their neighbours to lead the way. as a young officer, I find that rather difficult, but I At the moment there is no recognition of Somaliland understand the background. as a separate state by any country in the world. It may be that it is through the African Union that a change of heart should come, but our position is that this is a Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the matter that has to be settled by the Somali people noble Lord for his support regarding HMS “Protector”. themselves and their neighbours rather than unilaterally On the defence of the Falkland Islands, as the Secretary by us. 453 Somalia[LORDS] Disabled People: Employment 454

Lord Avebury: My Lords, three months ago, the without reform to make them more legitimate in the UN Security Council authorised an increase in the eyes of their own people. What help is being given by strength of AMISOM from 8,000 to 12,000. Will my DfID in this reform process and how is it being noble friend say what progress has been made in co-ordinated with help from the European Union? meeting that objective? Will he also identify the substantial gains in the territory controlled by the TFG and Lord Howell of Guildford: I say in response to the AMISOM as announced in an AU communiqué of second part of the noble Baroness’s question that we 17 March, if necessary by publishing a map? are supporting the European Union training mission, which trains up personnel and returns them to Mogadishu Lord Howell of Guildford: I will look into the question to assist policing and the upholding of law and order, of publishing a map, but, as far as progress in upgrading such as it is in the area. We are working with it on a the strength of AMISOM is concerned, I am informed number of other programmes as well. As a result of that the first 1,000 additional troops, provided by the DfID review, the UK has agreed to provide up to Burundi, were deployed early this month. The remaining £250 million—a very considerable amount indeed—in troops are being provided by Uganda and are expected support of Somalia over the next four years, but we to deploy before the summer. As for the substantial shall have a review of how that is going halfway gains, AMISOM carried out an offensive in Mogadishu through, in 2013. Our objective is to help support from 19 February to 6 March, during which it was prosperity and tackle poverty across Somalia and to able to secure new ground, including vital areas around support efforts at peacebuilding and reconciliation at Bakara market. We are aware of other fighting between national, regional and, as I was saying a moment ago, TFG-aligned militias and al-Shabaab elsewhere in the at local level. It is the co-operation of the transitional country, including in and around Bulo Hawo. Government and their commitment to this programme that are the conditions on which we base our support for them. Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, have we not dangerously underestimated the reach and influence of al-Shabaab, not only in terrorising the people of The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, is the Minister Somalia but also in claiming responsibility for the aware of the work being done by Missions to Seafarers deaths last year of 74 innocent people in Uganda? Mombasa in providing counsel and support for seafarers Should we not be doing more to highlight the depredations who have been freed after having been hijacked by of al-Shabaab, which include the killing of Sufi and pirates off the coast of Somalia? Will he join me in moderate Muslims, public executions, amputations, affirming the wonderful work undertaken by Missions public flogging and stoning of women, the routine to Seafarers, not least through the promotion of an killing of journalists and the recruiting of child soldiers, annual Sea Sunday, which this year, on 11 July, will some of whom have been responsible for some of the highlight the problem of Somali piracy? murders that I have mentioned? This has inevitably led to a large number of refugees leaving the country. Lord Howell of Guildford: We are aware of this excellent What can the Minister tell us about the plight of those work. It reminds us all of the much wider problem of refugees, the human rights abuses and the export of piracy—which has been discussed in the House—which al-Shabaab’s terror? has been getting worse. The UK Government are taking the lead through the contact group and a Lord Howell of Guildford: I can certainly confirm variety of other co-operative links with the EU NAVOR that, as the noble Lord said, al-Shabaab is a vicious Operation Atalanta, the Combined Maritime Task and dangerous group which has been responsible for Force 151 and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2. numerous terrorist attacks in Somalia and the killing A co-ordinated effort is coming together to meet the of soldiers, AMISOM troops, innocent civilians and overall piracy issue, the basic roots of which, given the parliamentarians, and which shows no regard for human instability of Somalia, lie as much on land as they do life. The noble Lord asked what we could do. Her on the high seas. Majesty’s Government have a Somalia strategy which they are pursuing. We are working with the AU, the EU and other allied forces and we are doing everything Disabled People: Employment we can to establish a political strategy for the area. It is Question called a “dual-track” strategy, whose objective is to encourage both the transitional Government, provided 3.01 pm that they commit to the right degree of reforms, and Asked By Baroness Turner of Camden the bottom-up development of responsible and constructive groups who can oppose these very unpleasant To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their people. They are a real danger, and the noble Lord is response to the decision of Remploy Ltd, the largest absolutely right to draw attention to their vicious and specialist employer of disabled people in the United unacceptable activities. Kingdom, to make redundancies among the workforce.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, may I press the Minister a little further on the question Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): My of reform? In his Answer, he said that there would be Lords, voluntary redundancies are a matter for Remploy no extension of the transitional institutions’ mandate management and employees. Remploy will continue to 455 Disabled People: Employment[21 MARCH 2011] Wreck Removal Convention Bill 456 examine how best to deliver its businesses within the Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords— existing five-year modernisation plan funding and will continue to fulfil its mission of transforming lives by providing sustainable employment opportunities for Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords— disabled and disadvantaged people. Noble Lords: Hollis! Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that response. However, is he aware that I have Lord McNally: My Lords, the House was calling received information from the unions that Remploy for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. has been told by the Government to make 1,500 people redundant? They are very concerned about this because they fear that it may mean the closure of certain Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Thank you, my Lords, locations. As I said in my Question, Remploy is the I am grateful. We all agree, following the noble Lord, largest specialist employer of disabled people in the Lord Addington, that the best strategy for work for country, working at 54 different locations. Surely it is disabled people is to see them coming into mainstream in the interests of everyone, including the Government, jobs. Anything that can be done in this respect by the to ensure that this facility is maintained because, in the current Government, as was done by the previous one, light of the Government’s own policy, it is very important is greatly to be welcomed. Yet, frankly, that strategy that disabled people should be able to work if they only works when there is low unemployment. At the want to do so. moment, in my county of Norfolk where 32,000 people are chasing 4,000 jobs, I suspect that the opportunities Lord Freud: My Lords, I can categorically reassure for disabled people will shrink unless Remploy can the noble Baroness that there is no such plan as has ensure supportive employment. Could the Minister been suggested by the unions; we are looking at a not at least work with Remploy to ensure that there voluntary redundancy plan. The next stage of what are continuing opportunities for disabled people until happens to Remploy will depend on the review that we see the employment market open up again? Liz Sayce is conducting into disability employment programmes, which is due to report in the summer. Lord Freud: My Lords, my last answer made clear the extraordinary success of Remploy in getting people Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, I recognise that with disabilities into jobs. That does not seem to have only voluntary redundancies are being sought at this been affected by a very difficult employment market. I stage, but does the Minister not agree that Remploy’s remind the House of the relative costs: the factory failure to meet its financial targets is, at least in part, business of Remploy takes between 20 per cent and attributable to the Government’s failure to meet their 25 per cent of the total that we as a country spend on commitment to put work into the factories through disability employment programmes to support some procurement and otherwise? Can he assure the House 3,000 people. that the Government will redouble their efforts to fulfil their side of the bargain contained in the five-year Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while recognising funding agreement of 2007? that the policy of the coalition Government is to have voluntary separation and voluntary redundancy, does Lord Freud: My Lords, the Remploy business plan the Minister agree with me that even on a voluntary was designed by Remploy management. It has failed basis the number of job opportunities will be reduced to achieve its targets because, in retrospect, it was for disabled people in the future? wildly overambitious to expect that public procurement could go up by 130 per cent. The cost of subsidising a disabled person in a Remploy job has now reached Lord Freud: My Lords, I hope that I have made £23,000 a year, compared with the success of Remploy absolutely clear the exact opposite. The employment employment services in putting a person into an services strategy is working. Numbers are going up. It independent job for a one-off cost of £3,400. is looking to help 30,000 people per year by 2012-13 into mainstream jobs. A company such as ASDA has already taken on 1,000 disabled people. With this Lord Addington: My Lords, will my noble friend strategy we are delivering something that disabled expand on the work of Remploy employment services? lobbies and people want—to be in full, mainstream Getting people with disabilities into jobs in the mainstream employment. is surely the way forward. What guarantee is there of support for such schemes, which are in line with what most of us have been working towards for a long time. Wreck Removal Convention Bill First Reading Lord Freud: Yes, my Lords, the success of Remploy’s employment services is little less than extraordinary. It has now put some 24,000 people into jobs. In 2009-10 3.08 pm there were more than 10,000 people. It looks to get about 18,000 people into jobs this year and its target The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first for 2012-13 is 30,000. time and ordered to be printed. 457 Pensions Bill [HL][LORDS] Libya 458

Pensions Bill [HL] It is now almost a month since the people of Libya Order of Consideration Motion first took to the streets to make clear their wish for a regime that is free of oppression and corruption. Since those initial protests, we have seen the situation deteriorate 3.08 pm and the violence increase. In response to the need to Moved By Lord Freud protect vulnerable citizens, the UK has played a leading role in delivering EU action and UNSC resolutions. That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: On 23 February, the UN Secretary-General described the reported nature and scale of attacks on civilians as, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3, “egregious violations of international and human rights law”, Schedule 3, Clauses 4 to 18, Schedule 4, Clauses 19 and called on the Government of Libya to, to 25, Schedule 5, Clauses 26 to 30. “meet its responsibility to protect its people”. Motion agreed. He said later that more than 1,000 people had been killed and many more had been injured in Libya amid credible and consistent reports of arrests, detention Marine Licensing (Licence Application and torture. Appeals) Regulations 2011 At the end of February, and at Britain’s instigation, the UN Security Council agreed Resolution 1970 to bring in asset freezes and a travel ban for Gaddafi’s Marine Licensing (Notices Appeals) top officials. Accordingly, the Foreign Secretary removed Regulations 2011 the exemption from UK immigration control that applied previously to Gaddafi, as head of state, and members of his household, thus preventing them from Waste (England and Wales) Regulations entering the UK. The Government also took action to freeze the assets of Gaddafi, members of his family, 2011 people acting on their behalf, and entities owned or Motions to Approve controlled by them. We have prohibited the export of uncirculated Libyan banknotes without a licence from 3.08 pm the UK. Moved By Lord Henley The EU Council decision and regulation, adopted on 3 March, extended the scope of the travel ban and That the draft regulations laid before the House asset freeze to include additional individuals subject on 7 and 8 February be approved. to EU measures. On 11 March, the European Council Relevant document: 16th Report from the Joint issued a declaration on developments in Libya, in Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in which EU leaders called on Gaddafi to “relinquish power Grand Committee on 16 March. immediately”, as his regime had “lost all legitimacy”, and agreed to work with the UN, the Arab League, the African Union and international partners in responding Motions agreed. to the crisis. There has also been a clear desire by the international Arrangement of Business community to see Gaddafi’s regime held to account Announcement for its actions. On 1 March, Libya was suspended from the UN Human Rights Council. The UK was also instrumental in referring Gaddafi and his regime to 3.09 pm the International Criminal Court, which opened its Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the Leader investigation on 3 March. Despite repeated calls to of the House will shortly repeat a Statement about end their violence and, as the UN Secretary-General Libya. The usual channels have agreed that the time put it, for the Government of Libya to, for Back-Bench questions and answers today should “meet its responsibility to protect its people”, be extended from 20 minutes to 40 minutes. we saw only an escalation of state violence and an ever growing number of civilian casualties. We therefore supported the UN in a call for an immediate ceasefire Libya and, if one were not forthcoming, for action to protect Statement the civilian population. A no-fly zone was authorised by UN Resolution 3.09 pm 1973 on 17 March 2011. The resolution also called for The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord an immediate ceasefire, an end to the violence, measures Strathclyde): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I to make it more difficult to bring mercenaries into will now make a Statement about Libya in order to Libya and the tightening of sanctions. It also authorised bring the House up to date, in light of United Nations the use of all necessary measures to protect the civilian Security Council Resolution 1973, the Prime Minister’s population, including in Benghazi. Unfortunately, the Statement to the other place of Friday 18 March and Gaddafi regime did not heed this resolution and continued, events that have taken place over the weekend. and indeed stepped up, brutal military action against 459 Libya[21 MARCH 2011] Libya 460 its own citizens over the following days, while pretending of the Arab League and many others. And it is right because we in public to be implementing a ceasefire. Therefore, on believe we should not stand aside while this dictator murders his 19 March, a summit for support for the Libyan people own people”. was convened in Paris by President Sarkozy. It was I will ensure that the Government keep the House attended by France, the UK, the USA, Spain, Germany, updated as the situation develops. Canada, Qatar, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Greece, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, the League of Arab States, Iraq, the UAE, Jordan and Morocco, as well as the 3.18 pm UN and EU. Leaders agreed to, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful “act collectively and resolutely to give effect”, to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the to UNSCR 1973 and called on Gaddafi and his Statement that he has just given on Libya. Noble forces to, Lords will be aware that MPs in another place are debating and voting today on the UK’s involvement in “immediately end all acts of violence carried out against civilians, military action by the United Nations-led coalition in to withdraw from all areas they have entered by force, return to their compounds and allow full humanitarian access”. Libya. Our role in this House is not that today, but this is a serious and important matter and it is right that Following that, on the evening of 19 March, UK this House should consider these matters today as Armed Forces under the authority of United Nations well. Security Council Resolution 1973 participated in a co-ordinated strike against Libyan air defence systems. First, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord The UK launched guided Tomahawk land-attack missiles Strathclyde, about members of the UK’s Armed Forces from a Trafalgar class submarine. The RAF also launched who are engaged in that military action. We are and Storm Shadow missiles from a number of Tornado should be proud of what they do and of their ability, GR4 fast jets, which flew direct from RAF Marham as expertise and bravery. We share the concern of the part of a co-ordinated coalition plan to begin the families of service personnel at times of such action. international community’s enforcement of the Security At a time of military engagement, it is particularly Council resolution. HMS “Westminster” is currently important to be clear about what is being done and off the coast of Libya and HMS “Cumberland” is in what the strategy is, and about purpose and support. the region, ready to support operations. The Prime Minister said last week in relation to Libya and to the military action being taken by the UK and Gaddafi made a television statement late on 19 March, by UK forces that, in which he criticised military action and asked the Security Council and the international community for “what we are doing is necessary, it is legal, and it is right”. an “immediate” stop to the hostilities. Gaddafi claimed: We on these Benches agree with that. We support what the United Nations is doing, what Britain is doing “Libya will be practising its right of self-defence according to clause 51 of the UN Charter”, with its allies in the coalition and what the Government here are doing in relation to Libya. and threatened that, However, in addition to giving support, it is our job “civilian and military targets in the air and sea will be liable to as an Opposition to maintain scrutiny and to hold the serious danger in the Mediterranean”. Government to account. That is what we must and UK and partner forces remain engaged in ongoing will do. Strong support and rigorous scrutiny through operations as we seek to ensure that Colonel Gaddafi this House are our clear job and responsibility as and his forces understand that the international an Opposition, so, as I said, that is what we will do. community will not stand by and watch them continue We can all see from our television screens and other to kill civilians. sources that the position on the ground in Libya and I am sure that all Members of the House will join in the air above it is fast moving. It is in the nature of me in expressing pride in our Armed Forces and military action, especially in modern military engagement, admiration for the bravery and expertise of our service that that is the case. The job of politicians in these men and women as they complete their difficult work. circumstances is not to second-guess the military We also pay tribute to the continuing work of British commanders—they are doing their job, on behalf of officials both at home and abroad as they, too, complete us all—but it is right that we should consider the their tasks. broader position and the context for that military action. That is the job for both Houses of our Parliament I want to make it clear that these are efforts to today. protect the Libyan population as called for by many In relation to Libya and the current military action, Libyans throughout the country including the Libyan I ask the Leader of the House about four principal opposition, with whom we are in regular contact. The areas: the action that Colonel Gaddafi is taking against Libyan population wants freedom from oppression his own people; our response to that action; our and to be able to choose its leaders. As the Prime strategy for that response; and the position at and Minister has said, after the cessation of military activity. “what we are doing is necessary, it is legal, and it is right. It is In all this, the shadow of Iraq looms large. Iraq and necessary because, with others, we should be trying to prevent him”— the UK’s part in the military activity there were controversial at the time and remain controversial Gaddafi— now. Inevitably, what happened in Iraq is bound to “using his military against his own people. It is legal, because we lead to hard questions about the wisdom, practicality have the backing of the United Nations Security Council and also and consequences of intervention, including this 461 Libya[LORDS] Libya 462

[BARONESS ROYALL OF BLAISDON] France and the United States have so far taken the intervention in Libya. However, as my right honourable lead. The US has made it clear that it does not wish to friend the shadow Foreign Secretary put it today, remain as the principal agent in the coalition, although “while Iraq should inform us, it should not paralyse us”. it will strongly and forcefully both support it and play That is right. its own full part in it. Who will act as the principal agent in the coalition? Will that be a job for NATO? When Colonel Gaddafi announced that, in relation How will the coalition be organised in terms of relations to 700,000 of his own countrymen and countrywomen with the members of the coalition? Will that be done in Libya who had sought freedom, as so many have by continuing international summits, such as the one done this spring across the Middle East, there would convened in Paris last Friday that the noble Lord be “no mercy and no pity”, we have a clear responsibility mentioned? to act. When Libyan government officials declare that there will be house-to-house revenge, we have a clear Could the Leader explain to the House what the responsibility to act. When at least 1,000, probably UK Government judge to be the meaning of the many more, of Libya’s own people have been killed by phrase used in the United Nations resolution that “all the Gaddafi regime, according to the UN, we have a necessary” force is now authorised to prevent the clear responsibility to act. Action over Libya was and slaughter of the civilian population in Libya? Does is necessary precisely because of Gaddafi’s explicit that, in the Government’s view, include, as necessary actions—because of what he has done and what he and appropriate at some point in the future, the use of proposed to do. ground troops in addition to the airborne forces that we are currently deploying? In the coalition’s strategy, Will the Leader of the House confirm that action in will the Leader confirm that there is no intent for these circumstances is action to protect the Libyan coalition forces to be or to become an army of occupation? people? We should not forget that a responsibility to Could he say what will constitute success in Libya? Is protect was agreed by the Security Council in the the creation of a stalemate between the regime and United Nations General Assembly following the atrocities those against it a legitimate objective for the coalition? in Kosovo and Rwanda, when the world community How far have the UK, the UN or the coalition considered failed to protect. The United Nations Security Council the issue of partition, and what might that mean in resolution allows all necessary measures to maintain practice for those taking part in the coalition? What and restore international peace and security under will constitute the end game? Chapter 7 of the UN charter. Will the noble Lord confirm that regime change is not an objective, that In Iraq, much attention was focused on the legitimacy the proper focus will be the protection of the Libyan of the military conflict, but much attention was also people, that measures have to be measured and concentrated on accusations that, in taking military proportionate and that Gaddafi is not a target unless action, insufficient attention was paid to what would he becomes or acts as part of the command and staff happen when that military action was, in the main, of any particular action? over. What happens subsequent to the military action is of course dependent on the outcome of that action. It is important that the Government as a whole Libya and the Libyan people will and must be dominant speak with one voice on this issue. I would be grateful in that. However, the Arab League, the African Union if the noble Lord could confirm that, although the and the coalition will also be important. No one would comments made by the Secretary of State for Defence expect that, at the very moment that military action is were perhaps unfortunate, they should not be taken as taking place, equal attention could or should be given indicating that the Government have any intention of to what happens after the shooting stops. Equally, one acting outside the confines of United Nations Security of the ways in which Iraq should inform us is that, Council Resolution 1973. however difficult it is, attention must be given to what I pay tribute to the former Leader of your Lordships’ happens afterwards. If the humanitarian need to act is House, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, pressing now, a different kind of humanitarian aid will who in her role as the European Union’s High be pressing after the military action. Representative for Foreign Affairs was, I know, closely Britain is in a better position to consider these involved in important discussions with the Council issues because of our values as a nation, a democracy of Ministers, the Arab League and the G8. The noble and a country where both the rule of law and human Baroness sometimes gets a rough ride in the media. rights are paramount. Humanitarian requirements are She is tough enough to take it, but she deserves credit, strong. Multilateralism is the best way to respond to too, for what she does and what she is able to do in them. That is why we support the United Nations difficult circumstances such as these. overall and, specifically, in relation to Libya. The important decision of the Arab League to Can the Leader of the House give a commitment support a no-fly zone for Libya and the decision of the that this House will have the earliest possible opportunity United Nations Security Council in passing Resolution to debate these issues in full in a day-long debate? Can 1973 show clearly the strength of feeling and the business perhaps be so arranged that such a debate strength of purpose in the international community. could take place this week or next week at the latest— We all recognise that without that decision by the maybe even on Friday 1 April? I am very grateful to league there would have been no United Nations the Minister for saying that he will keep us informed Security Council resolution. about Libya and the military action. I presume that Will the Leader of the House set out the form of the noble Lord means that he will do so through the current coalition—the number of countries involved Statements and, perhaps, in briefings on a variety of and the number that are likely to be involved? Britain, bases for Members of this House. 463 Libya[21 MARCH 2011] Libya 464

Throughout the Middle East, the world is turning and France to enforce the no-fly zone. I can announce on its axis. The changes in some countries have been to the House today that coalition forces have largely enacted differently. There has been violence in Bahrain, neutralised Libyan air defences and that, as a result, for example, and Yemen.There was certainly bloodshed a no-fly zone has effectively been put in place over in Egypt. The removal of President Mubarak was not Libya. However, Colonel Gaddafi’s forces launched carried out without blood being spilt. However, overall, artillery and tank bombardments against Misurata Egypt managed to change without the kind of large-scale over the weekend of 19 to 20 March, causing dozens violence, murder and war crime that we have seen and of injuries and damage to electricity and water supplies. are seeing in Libya. Change is possible without what is Under these circumstances, we are utterly clear about tantamount in Libya to civil war. However, Libya is the legal basis for military action and the fact that the different; it is a special case. In Libya, the leader of the UN Security Council resolution has been comprehensively country is making large-scale threats against his own broken. Our strategy is, therefore, to enforce that people. He is enacting those threats by attacking and resolution. killing his own people on a massive scale. That demands This action is being taken primarily to protect the a response—a proportionate and just response, but a civilian population in Libya. Regime change is no part clear response of the kind that the United Nations is of our objective, although we have made it clear, giving. We support the Government in that response. through the Prime Minister and as a Government, We will maintain our responsibility to scrutinise what that we believe that Colonel Gaddafi no longer has the Government are doing but, in seeking to protect the support and confidence of his people. I can also the people of Libya, the Government, the coalition confirm that Colonel Gaddafi is not a target, as the and the UK Armed Forces fighting there now, today, Chief of the Defence Staff, General Richards, told the in our names, have our support. BBC. He said: “It’s not allowed under the UN resolution”. 3.29 pm I believe that that is entirely in accordance with all that the Secretary of State for Defence has said. Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin with what the noble Baroness said in her closing remarks. We are I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said witnessing, right across the Middle East, a great period about the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who has of change. We are witnessing events sometimes changing performed a difficult task under difficult circumstances. very quickly on our television screens, dealing with I know that she has the wholehearted support of this frustrations that have built up over a long period. In House. each country these are manifested in different ways The question is raised: who is running this military and may well end in different destinations. It is difficult operation and what is NATO’s role? In other words, for us to see exactly what those will be. Our role is to who is in charge? The operation is currently under US encourage the aspirations of individual countries’ peoples command, with high-profile French and UK involvement to be met and to enable change, where it happens, to as well as close co-ordination with a range of other be as peaceful as possible and provide for the long-term countries, including Arab states. We continue to discuss sustainability of individual nations. with partners the arrangements for the next phase of I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and the this military operation. Over the short term, we want a way in which she expressed it. I thank her particularly transition to NATO command of military operations for supporting the action that the Government have as quickly as is feasible. That is also Turkey’s aim. We taken. She is completely right: this House should are working hard to get decisions in NATO to enable debate these great issues. The House was not sitting on this to happen as fast as possible. Friday when the Statement was taken in another place The noble Baroness asked a series of questions, and the usual channels deemed it too short notice to some of which are hypothetical. For instance, she provide for a debate at the same time as the debate in asked what happens next. It is very difficult to picture another place. Through the usual channels we will exactly what the next course of action will be, but we continue to provide time for short debates and Statements, know that it will be a difficult and dangerous road as they arise. If there is a need for a wider debate—I ahead. We cannot determine the exact course of events. suspect that there will be—we will make time available However, we are clear that already we have saved for that and let the House know. Like the noble civilian lives from the violence of their own regime. We Baroness the Leader of the Opposition, I think that have prevented the fall of Benghazi, which is a substantial we should do that relatively soon—perhaps towards city of more than 1 million residents, and we believe the end of next week. that Libyan people have a better chance of determining The noble Baroness said that we needed to be clear their own destiny than before. about the purpose of this action and that there should We are clear about the meaning of the Security be clear parliamentary scrutiny. I entirely agree with Council resolution: “all necessary” force in enforcing her. The purpose of this House is not only to inform the no-fly zone and protecting civilians means exactly another place but to inform the Government of the that, but it does not mean that we can put military views of this House. forces on the ground. We do not believe that that is What has Colonel Gaddafi been doing and how has allowable under the Security Council resolution. he breached Security Council Resolution 1973? Since I have said that we will have an opportunity to Saturday evening, it is clear to us that Colonel Gaddafi’s debate this. I will continue to update the House, as will forces launched an attack on Benghazi, shelling residential my colleagues. The noble Baroness also made an suburbs. There have been air strikes by the US, the UK interesting suggestion that we as a Government might 465 Libya[LORDS] Libya 466

[LORD STRATHCLYDE] who is universally and rightly recognised as a master be able to offer briefings to interested Peers. I would of diplomacy, to use that gift to persuade as many very much like to offer that. My noble friends Lord Arab states as possible to come out openly in favour of Howell of Guildford and Lord Astor of Hever will this international coalition? What the Prime Minister make time for interested Peers to be kept abreast of has achieved permanently—I hope that the Minister events as they unfold. Through the usual channels, we will agree—is to make international affairs part of the will find a way of bringing that to the attention of the national interest. Perhaps he or another senior Minister House. will write to Mr Tony Blair and quote the words of a great Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, who wrote to 3.37 pm Harold Laski, then chairman of the Labour Party: Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the Minister “A period of silence from you would be most welcome”. accept my thanks for the way that the Government have acted by putting down that resolution at the Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I join my noble friend, Security Council at the key moment? Will the Government as I know the House does, in paying tribute to our give some consideration to getting the Security Council troops who have reacted immensely quickly to the to authorise putting Libya’s oil resources into an challenges put upon them and who even now are in escrow account and making a proportion of that action or redeploying—particularly the RAF—to a account roughly proportionate to the size of the part new forward base in southern Italy. My noble friend of Libya that is under the control of the insurgents encouraged me to use my influence with the Prime available to them for civil purposes? That, as the noble Minister to urge him to encourage Arab states to stay Lord will remember, was what happened in Iraq in on board. The Prime Minister needs absolutely no 1991. It successfully supported the survival of the encouragement from me. He is actively involved in this Kurdish part of Iraq, without in any way altering our work and is speaking by telephone to members of the respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Arab League continually. There were stories yesterday that country.That would be a way in which the insurgents in the news that the Arab League was withdrawing its could be helped. When dealing with some Governments support because of civilian casualties. I can confirm around the world who have expressed doubts or even that that is not the case. The Secretary-General, Amr criticism of what we have done, will the Minister Moussa, said: remind them that every single one of them subscribed “It is for the Security Council to take decisions as it sees fit. in 2005 to the doctrine of the responsibility to protect? What we did in the Arab League is make an official request to Will he ask them fairly robustly what they would do impose a no-fly zone on military activities against the Libyan now to protect the civilians of Libya? people”. In creating these alliances and coalitions, a lot of people need to be brought together. This needs continual Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have noted previously diplomatic work and the Prime Minister is at the that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, brings his considerable forefront of that. experience and knowledge to bear in this House. It is immensely useful that he does so at this time. I very much welcome his words about the United Kingdom Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, perhaps I may and France putting down the key resolution, and carry on that theme by suggesting to the Leader of the doing so at the right time—some would say in the nick House that it is not a question just of the Arab League of time. Certainly, if it had happened 24 hours later, giving diplomatic support. Will he assure the House we might have faced a very different situation in that we will ensure that the Arab League takes part Libya. militarily in the operation—the more members, the The noble Lord makes an interesting suggestion—one better—and that if it does not, and if we find that that is based on precedent—about the oil resources Arab support evaporates, we will think very hard and an escrow account. All these matters are under about extricating ourselves from this military action? consideration in the United Nations and, of course, in the Security Council and in individual member states. Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord makes As the noble Lord points out, such a measure would an extremely good point. Qatar is sending military respect the integrity of international borders. assistance. We anticipate further assistance from other On the criticism of some countries, the words of the Arab League members, although we are currently not noble Lord stand. They will be read and should be in a position to say what form this will take. Arab repeated to those countries that have sat by while so partners made it clear that if the action was authorised many others have done the work. In due course, the by a Security Council resolution, they would contribute world will re-evaluate those who stood by and would military assets. We are continuing to discuss this with have let a cataclysm occur in Benghazi. them and to lobby our partners to contribute to a coalition force from both NATO and the wider international community. Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, on behalf of all Back-Benchers in the House, perhaps I may express admiration for our gallant troops of both sexes in the Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on this side support war. It is not necessary for everybody to take up the credible and convincing case made by the Prime valuable time with that statement, so perhaps I may Minister in the other place. The legality of the action take it on myself to express it. Secondly, will the is not in question, because the systematic slaughter Minister use his influence to persuade the Prime Minister, and violation of international and human rights law 467 Libya[21 MARCH 2011] Libya 468 by Gaddafi against his own population demand action. Lord Judd: My Lords, it is immensely reassuring The protection of civilians must be the top priority as that the Government are showing determination that the collateral damage would be exploited by Gaddafi. our courageous service men and women should operate Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord three pertinent within the context of international law and under the questions. The first concerns his statement about authority of the Security Council. I am sure that there Amr Moussa’s interpretation of Resolution 1973. Are is widespread support for that determination on the we absolutely sure that at this stage he understands part of the Government. However, does the noble our position? Is he able to help us, as Qatar is doing, in Lord agree that, ultimately, the long-term stability of terms of military action against Gaddafi? Secondly, Libya and of other Arab countries is dependent on the the role of the African Union should not be people being in control of their own destiny? It is their underestimated, particularly when mercenaries from struggle and they have to find the solutions; and some African countries are being used by Gaddafi. We whether or not there should be regime change is in still have to face the question of the large number of their hands. Is it not, therefore, essential for us to refugees who are now on the borders of Libya. Thirdly, avoid at all costs being directly or indirectly seduced the exit strategy must be clearly stated. Irrespective of into what could be seen as political manipulation of the fate of the Libyan dictator, the solution must the situation? Can the noble Lord also say a word remain a matter for the Libyan people. about the predicament of the large number of refugees, many of whom are, in effect, stateless? Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his opening remark that the legality is not in Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I welcome what the question. He is right in that. We have received the noble Lord has said about us operating within the clearest possible advice on the legal basis. The Security context of international law and with the full support Council resolution is extremely clear without any of a UN Security Council resolution. The noble Lord ambiguity and the breaking of that resolution is equally is also entirely correct in talking about long-term clear. I also agree with my noble friend that the most stability being in the hands of the Libyan people. If vital aspect of the work taking place under the auspices the western powers—perhaps I can put it as loosely as of that Security Council resolution is the protection of that—were seen to be imposing some kind of solution civilians in Libya. Within that, as I said to the noble on Libya, it would not work. I totally agree with what Lord, Lord West, the support of the Arab League and the noble Lord said: the future of Libya must lie in the the African Union is also extremely important. Diplomatic hands of its people and they must decide how best to efforts are being vigorously carried out across the run their affairs. That is part of what all this is about: world. Finally, my noble friend asked about the exit by protecting civilians, we give the people the ability to strategy. We have made it very clear for a long time have a choice to aspire to change, as has happened that we believe that Colonel Gaddafi has lost the more peacefully in other parts of the Middle East. support and confidence of his people. However, in the The noble Lord also asked about humanitarian aid first place, we wish to see peace and for the people of for those who find themselves stateless. I suspect that Benghazi to be able to go about their lives in a peaceful that could easily become a growing problem but DfID manner. We will review the situation from time to time has played a key role and has already provided tens of and will see how events unfold in the days and weeks thousands of blankets, more than 1,400 family tents ahead. and charter planes which have returned more than 6,000 people to their countries. The number of arrivals Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, this episode, if in transit camps is now falling; as of 20 March, some I may call it that, which has given rise to discussion 5,874 people remain at the transit camp and DfID, today, is characteristic of the unpredictability of foreign with many other partners, is continuing to work to affairs and it indicates the way in which something reduce the number. very alarming has to be addressed urgently. I hope that the House will join me in welcoming the caution, Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the Minister comprehensiveness, clarity and courage with which agree that, if Gaddafi were to disappear from the this problem has been addressed, as well as our satisfaction scene tomorrow, he would leave behind him a non- that there is anything but complacency about it. We functional community, and no continued imposition shall need to be careful and watchful. However, we can of a no-fly zone would of itself give any real protection express great confidence in the decisions taken so far at all to that community? In the circumstances, does and extend our strongest support for the continuation he agree that the temptation may be very great for land of this approach to the problem. forces to be used to bring about that very result? Will he endorse something that I think he has already Lord Strathclyde: I very much welcome what my touched on, in so far as Her Majesty’s Government’s noble and learned friend has said with all his experience interpretation of the relevant resolution is concerned— and knowledge not just as a former Foreign Secretary after all it is a political and not a judicial decision—that but as someone who has witnessed many different he would abjure completely the possibility of land international crises and events over a long period. I troops being used? assure him that there is no complacency and I know that he understands that. I very much welcome his Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, however desirable it continued support and encouragement. I hope that he would be for Colonel Gaddafi to disappear tomorrow, will avail himself of any briefing that we can offer so I can confirm that this country will not be tempted to as to keep himself entirely up to speed. use land forces to bring that about. 469 Libya[LORDS] Libya 470

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, Noble Lords: Oh! perhaps I can invite the Minister to clarify that point which might be open to misunderstanding. Although it is true that the UN Security Council resolution Lord McNally: Noble Lords are behaving worse with forbids or does not cover any invasion or occupation, 40 minutes than they did when they had 20 minutes. there is nothing in that resolution which would inhibit us using military assets to do something like rescue a downed pilot. Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. As someone who has been involved in Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords, I regard that as a Anglo-Libyan commercial relations for the past five very different point and I am able to clarify that to my or six years, I have, needless to say, received with the noble friend. greatest distress what has been happening in Libya in recent weeks: the wholesale slaughter of civilians and the wounding of a great many more. I am bound to Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: My Lords, the House has say, therefore, that I very much agree with the action heard an admirably clear account of how we got here. that the Government took first at the United Nations I was not as convinced by the way in which the noble and then in joining the military operations of recent Lord brushed aside the question of where we go next. days. I agree that it is hard to predict the future, but it is good to know where you want to go; that is called However, we have to be careful about the objectives having war aims. It seems to me that, as of today, the that we are seeking, both military and political. The analogy is with the first Iraq war when we had, as now, military objectives are surely simply to pave the way a very clear legal base in a Security Council resolution— towards the political objectives; and the political objective new and specific—and we had widespread support in seems clear, which is to provide for the people of Libya the region and in the Muslim world generally. I believe an opportunity to choose for themselves in a free and that that is the case now; I hope that it is. We also had fair way who should be their leaders. very clear war aims. We were going to restore the independence of Kuwait. Therefore, the exit strategy was absolutely clear. Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I acknowledge my This time, it is so important to retain the support of noble friend’s great understanding of Anglo-Libyan the Muslim world and the Middle East that it is relations. I thank him for his support of the actions of crucial that the Prime Minister, who moved with admirable Her Majesty’s Government. I particularly agree with speed last week, should move no less fast this week to the clarity with which he put the objective, which is to agree war aims with the Defence Secretary and the provide for the people of Libya to choose their own Foreign Secretary, across the Government, with Paris future and political destiny. and Washington and our other NATO partners and across the Middle East, so that we are clear where it is we want to go. I hope that the noble Lord will pass Lord Anderson of Swansea: The noble Lord said that message on. that the primary objective is the protection of civilians. Surely under the terms of the UN Security Council resolution, that is the only objective, however tempted Lord Strathclyde: That is a good point well made. one might be to go further along that road and intervene The comparison with the clarity of the Gulf War in a civil war on one side or the other. The noble Lord involving Kuwait is a good one, but the timing was so has heard the concern about the position of the Arab different. We were faced last week with the possible League: unless and until it goes beyond words to annihilation of opposition forces in Benghazi. I accept action, there will be strains within the coalition. I hope the noble Lord’s implied criticism, which I know is that, with the Government, he will seek to impress meant in a constructive and friendly way, that clear on the Arab League that more is expected of it than objectives are harder to define. I hasten to add that I just brave words and that it should be with us all hope that I did not brush over that too much. The fact the way. that we have saved civilian lives from the violence of their own regime already is a success and an objective. Will the noble Lord say a little about the position of Enforcing the no-fly zone by damaging Libyan anti- countries, perhaps in the Arab League, seeking to aircraft assets is already a significant change. That provide arms to the rebels? Does the UN arms embargo means that coalition forces can fly over Libya to apply to both sides or would it be legitimate under enforce the no-fly zone. We believe that that will lead international law for countries to provide arms to the to the Libyan people having a better chance of determining rebels? their own destiny than before. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, made it clear that there is very limited civil society in Libya. Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords— The European Union is experienced in providing and buttressing civil society and in providing aid, but clearly Arab nations will have to take the lead. Can the Lord Trefgarne: My Lords— Minister give an assurance that we in the European Union are urgently looking at means of providing aid Lord McNally: There is another 20 minutes to go. on political, economic and social infrastructure to My noble friend Lord Trefgarne was on his feet before. help Libya look to a brighter future? 471 Libya[21 MARCH 2011] Libya 472

4pm my noble friend whether he agrees that, had we stood by and done nothing, it would have appeared to the Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord raises 1.5 billion people in the Muslim world that our warm useful and interesting questions. Under the Security words were hypocrisy of the most egregious order. Council resolution, there are two clear objectives. The first is to protect civilians and the second is to enforce My noble friend dealt with the questions asked by the no-fly zone. They are enormously interrelated, but the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by saying that he we believe that protecting civilians is a key objective. thought that the arms embargo applied to every entity We have already discussed the wider coalition, the in Libya. I refer him to Paragraph 4 of UN Resolution alliance across different nations and groups, including 1973, which seems to indicate that it is possible, under the Arab League. The Arab League has confirmed protecting civilians and civilian-populated areas, that it would be willing to offer military support, and notwithstanding Paragraph 9 of UN Resolution 1970, I am sure that some members of it will do so. for people to participate in giving armed assistance to the insurgents. Will he say whether the Government The arms embargo is for the nation of Libya as a are talking to the Gulf Co-operation Council states to whole. Therefore, any arms shipped to the opposition help financially, even if they are not prepared to do so or to rebel groups would be illegal under the Security militarily? Council resolution. On the EU role post conflict, I, too, believe that the EU has a substantial role to play. No doubt there are those within the EU working on Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble how that might work in practice. It could only work friend for her useful intervention. She is quite right to with co-operation. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord talk about what would have happened if we had stood Kerr, who talked about working in co-operation with by and a massacre had taken place and about the the Muslim world. I agree with both noble Lords on countries and the peoples who would have accused us that point. of allowing it to happen without raising a hand in protest. The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, does the My noble friend also talked about the Security Leader of the House share my concern that in an Council resolution. My answer to the noble Lord, increasingly volatile region there are already those Lord Anderson of Swansea, is also correct and allows who for their own ends are using somewhat inflammatory me to clarify the position. As I understand it, arms language and trying to construct a religious narrative may be supplied, but—this is key—only with the express around these unfolding events. In this account, a vulnerable approval of the United Nations Security Council sanctions Islamic population is being subjected to an opportunistic committee. That is a key hurdle. There is no ability attack by a powerful Christian West. Not only does simply to arm different parts of Libya at will; it has to such a narrative have the power to destabilise the be done with the agreement of the United Nations. wider Middle East region, but it could impact very negatively on community relations in this country. Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords— Does this not underline the point that has already been made about the need not only to continue to Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords— work with but to retain the confidence of the council of the Arab League? Will the Leader talk about other ways in which the Government might be attempting to Lord Chidgey: My Lords— counter such a narrative and deny it the currency that it could begin to gain that would be so damaging to Lord McNally: My Lords, shall we hear from the intercommunity relations here? noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, first?

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the right reverend Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Leader Prelate the Bishop of Exeter raises some extremely of the House for repeating the Statement. He mentioned important points. We will have all seen in the press and that the Libyan air defence system had been knocked on our television those who have used inflammatory out—an essential prerequisite for setting up a no-fly language for their own ends. There is no religious zone. The cost of doing that is not inconsiderable; angle here whatever. This country and the United Tomahawks check out at about £500,000, and Sky Nations are motivated by a humanitarian desire to Shadows for not much less. Hopefully there will be no bring some sort of peace and opportunity to the need to use so many of those weapons in the future. people of Libya. The best way for us to put that Nevertheless, the cost already of these operations and message across, including to communities in this country, the ongoing cost will not be inconsiderable. Will the is to repeat it and to explain what is really happening. Minister confirm that these costs will be met entirely It is a very human approach across humanity that from the contingency fund and not from the defence crosses religious boundaries that we should seek to spoke? work together to bring peace and stability to this region. Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, much as I would like to, I cannot confirm that to the noble and gallant Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, given Lord. I can, however, confirm again that the air defences that it has taken 28 minutes for a Muslim, and indeed have been broadly knocked out. Of course the noble a woman, to get in on these questions, I wonder and gallant Lord, with all his considerable experience, whether I, coming from the Muslim world, may ask understands the cost of these arms, but this is the kind 473 Libya[LORDS] Libya 474

[LORD STRATHCLYDE] Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, as regards of action that we would expect our Armed Forces to Security Council Resolution 1973, would not the Leader be able to deal with. If costs escalate substantially over of the House also agree that the decision of China two the next few weeks, no doubt the Secretary of State for weeks ago to support the referral of Colonel Gaddafi Defence and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will to the International Criminal Court firmly puts human need to discuss where this money will come from. rights at the heart of this issue? In that regard, the Leader said in the Statement that Libya has been Lord Reid of Cardowan: My Lords, the noble and suspended from the United Nations Human Rights gallant Lord referred to resources. Since the primary Council. Does he agree that it something of a paradox purpose of this is the protection of civilians, and since that a country that was responsible for the killing of the regime is the biggest threat to civilians, in the WPC Fletcher, responsible for the Lockerbie bombing absence of either a change of heart by the regime, and responsible for the atrocities now being committed which seems highly improbable, or a change of regime, against its own citizens was ever a member of that we have to consider that this no-fly zone might be sustained body in the first place? As we come to review the for the long term as necessary. In Iraq, for instance, to membership of the Human Rights Council, should we protect the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in not also review our arms policies? British arms are not the south, one such zone lasted for 12 years. Will the only being used now in this theatre in Libya but also noble Lord assure us that the Government not only being deployed elsewhere in the Middle East against have the resolve to stay the course on this but, following pro-democracy demonstrators. some of the comments that have just been made, that we have the resources to continue to play our part in it Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord says in the light of the recent defence review? that it is a paradox and he is entirely right—it is a paradox. We remember not only WPC Fletcher and the atrocity of Lockerbie but also the years of support Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord for the IRA perpetrated by Colonel Gaddafi. We have Reid, asks an immensely good question. He is right to a very robust arms policy in place. As I know the noble say that it might be for the long term, and none of us Lord believes and clearly understands, the aim of that can say at this stage what the long term is. We have policy is to keep continually under review what is taken decisions over the course of the past few weeks exported and to which country it is exported. on the need for a no-fly zone and we have constructed an international alliance. We will wish to maintain that and to get other countries to provide for military Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, 95 per cent of assets. If we are successful in doing so then there is Libya’s export earnings come from oil and gas, and every reason to believe that the pressure that is being 75 per cent of all Libyan oil is exported to western brought on the regime will prove a success. I think that Europe. Surely the issue of oil flows and the destination all noble Lords listening to this exchange will have of revenue must be a consideration in the mind of different views about what “long term” will mean. We Governments when key decisions are taken on the way will have to see how these events unfold before we can to proceed. We have a lot at stake in terms of oil. take a final decision on what the longest-term commitment from the United Kingdom will be. Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, our overriding objective is to protect the civilian population in Libya; that is the purpose of the action that we have taken. But the Lord Chidgey: My Lords, if we are to learn the noble Lord is right to say that regimes can be sustained lessons of Iraq, is it not essential that, during the by their revenues, including those from oil. This question operations currently under way, we do everything that is in the mind not only of the Government but of the we can to protect the power stations, the water supply, United Nations. sanitation—all the public sector infrastructure? In that context can the noble Lord tell us whether our cross- government stabilisation unit—not just DfID but also, Lord Selkirk of Douglas: Will my right honourable across departments, the FCO and the MoD—is at the and noble friend bear in mind that very serious allegations heart of the medium and long-term stabilisation planning? have been made from within Libya that Colonel Gaddafi Is the stabilisation planning feeding into the decision- had foreknowledge of the Lockerbie outrage before it making now? We learnt from Iraq that it has to be a occurred? Will he also keep in mind that the Lord current process, not a past idea. Finally, will the UN Advocate in Scotland has said that she may consider lead stabilisation efforts in the medium and long term? reopening the Lockerbie case? We should play our part but, clearly, this needs to be an international concern. Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is extremely important and valuable. I am sure that it is entirely right for the Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree with my noble Lord Advocate in Scotland to keep the case closely friend that this is a concern. Of course, what has been under review. happening is that it is Colonel Gaddafi and his troops and other armed forces who have been causing such Lord Touhig: My Lords, following the questions put difficulty and damage to electricity and water supplies, by my noble friend Lord Reid and the noble and particularly in the town of Misurata. It is no part of gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has any thought been given the coalition’s objective to try to degrade those kinds to British aircraft operating from bases in France? At of not just economic but humanitarian assets. present, they have to make a 3,000-mile round trip. 475 Libya[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 476

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, British aircraft are He went on to say: currently relocating to bases in southern Italy. “There is now a consensus across the country—dare I say brought to a head by the expenses scandal but which had been forming for some time—that the political system in this country Lord Bates: My Lords, while no one envies the needs to be reinvigorated”.—[Official Report, 1/3/2011; cols. 929-30.] grave task of my noble friend and my right honourable The noble and learned Lord is nodding helpfully. He is friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary putting forward this Bill as part of that reinvigoration in wrestling with these great decisions, can he confirm process. that the UN Security Council resolution was supported by only 10 members out of 15? The five countries that His leader, Nick Clegg, has spoken in a similar vein. abstained included the likes of India, Germany and The Select Committee of this House which reported Brazil. Their reservations were that they felt that diplomatic on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill had the privilege channels had not been exhausted; that there was a risk of Mr Clegg appearing in front of it. Its report states: that this action would galvanise support behind Gaddafi; “The Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is just one part of a package and that military action would also pose a risk to of proposed reforms intended by the Government to make the civilians. political system ‘far more transparent and accountable’. In his evidence, the Deputy Prime Minister told us that: ‘it is an unambiguous judgment on our part that reducing the power of the executive, Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, different countries seeking to boost the power of the legislature, making the legislatures more accountable to people ... collectively introduces the mechanisms take different decisions at different times. No country by which people can exercise greater control over politicians’”. voted against the Security Council resolution; 10 out of 15 voted in favour, and only nine votes were required The Deputy Prime Minister has also said that the time for it to be carried. Events as they unfold demonstrate has come to stop people being allowed to, that it was right to take military action over the course “play politics with the dates of a general election”.—[Official of the weekend and to protect civilians on the ground. Report, Commons, 7/6/10; col. 40.] That is the high-flown basis on which the matter is put forward. Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Happily, we have the account of the circumstances Committee (2nd Day) in which the five-year term was agreed, provided by Mr David Laws. I quote him from the introduction to his book: Relevant documents: 10th Report from the Delegated “My intention in writing this book is not to describe an Powers Committee, 8th Report from the Constitution all-too-brief Cabinet career. It is instead to inform those who are Committee. interested in this important period of British politics and to make sure that an accurate account is left of what really happened in May 2010 before memories fade, myths grow and the evidence 4.17 pm is lost”. On page 98, he writes that Andrew Stunell pointed out Clause1:Polling days for parliamentary general to the Conservative negotiators that, elections “trust and confidence was very important to us, and that we wouldn’t want to find the PM calling an election at a time that did not suit us. ‘That works both ways!’ said William Hague. We Amendment 11 mentioned that our own policy was for four-year, fixed-term Parliaments. George Osborne made the point that five-year Moved by Lord Falconer of Thoroton parliaments were better, as they allowed governments to get into implementing their plans before having to start worrying about 11: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “fifth” and insert the timing of the electoral cycle. We made no objection to this, “fourth” and Britain was on its way to five-year, fixed-term parliaments, for the first time in its history”. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment That is how the Liberal Democrats moved from four goes to the heart of the Bill in that it seeks to reduce years to five years; they did it because of the problem the period of a fixed-term Parliament from five years of trust. We should look at the proposals that are to four years. This important Bill may well bring about being put forward by the coalition with a moderately a significant change to our politics by changing the jaundiced eye, particularly because of the disingenuous position from a situation in which the norm for our way in which it is being done. Parliaments is to last around three years and eight However, that does not relieve this House from months to four years—with a maximum of five years—to considering as a matter of principle for the British a norm for our Parliaments to last for five years, with people whether the right period is five years or four the possibility of going below that period only in years. We are clear that the evidence—and this should exceptional circumstances. be decided on the basis of evidence—is strongly in The reason why the proposal in the Bill has been favour of four years rather than five. A mistake that advanced has been given on the basis of high principle. the coalition persistently makes, and made in relation At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Wallace of Tankerness, said that: Bill as well, is that because judgment is required in “The Fixed-term Parliaments Bill delivers a key strand of the coming to a conclusion on whether a particular course ambitious political and constitutional reform agenda which this should be taken, all evidence can therefore be ignored. Government have pledged to deliver”. One simply, for example, has a conversation with 477 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 478

[LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON] have read very carefully the speech of the noble and Mr Andrew Stunell which lasts 40 seconds, at which learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to see point you abandon the policies that one has adopted what arguments he advanced. He said that it would be for the previous 20 years. That does not sound to me possible to plan more easily if you had five-year terms. like the exercise of a judgment; it sounds like playing I fail to understand why planning cannot take place politics with the date of the next election, which is whether the norm is four years or five years. It is an precisely what the Deputy Prime Minister said should entirely bogus argument. not happen. Secondly, the point was made that you would have We in this House have an especial responsibility in a longer time in which to implement your provisions. determining what the length of a Parliament should The throw-away remark of Mr George Osborne which be. It is an area where the Parliament Act does not appears in Mr Laws’s book appears to be the reason normally apply, although I accept that its being five for five years. It states: years is not the reason for its not applying. Nevertheless, “George Osborne made the point that five-year Parliaments it is an area where this House has an especial responsibility were better, as they allowed governments to get into implementing to ensure that the matter is looked at on the basis of their plans before having to start worrying about the timing of the evidence. electoral cycle”. What does the evidence show? The Select Committee Presumably, that would depend entirely upon the length looking at the Bill heard evidence, which did not of time their plans took in any individual case. It is happen in terms of pre-legislative scrutiny, and concluded therefore difficult to see the force of that argument. unequivocally that the evidence showed that four years As was said at Second Reading, when Asquith was the right answer rather than five. In her speech at introduced the current arrangements he made it clear Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said: that he thought a five-year maximum would, in practice, “The weight of evidence from British and international experts lead to a four-year period of time, which he said was to the committee was against a five-year norm as against a sufficiently close at some stages to the previous election five-year maximum”. and sufficiently near to the next election to lead to We should remember that this legislation involves a accountability. If the coalition were serious about change from a five-year maximum to a five-year norm. trying to reinvigorate our politics, it would at least She continued: address that issue. The consequence of there having “My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has already quoted been a four-year fixed term is that there would have Democratic Audit, which expressed alarm that a five-year term would present, ‘a reversal of a long struggle for more accountable been four fewer general elections between now and government’. Overseas experience, for example from Canada and 1945. If your aim is to connect more with the electorate, Sweden, suggested, in the words of witnesses, that, ‘there seems to surely reducing the number of general elections rather be a kind of natural rhythm around four years’, and, ‘four years is than increasing them will have precisely the opposite more consistent with voter expectations’, all of which appears effect of that which Mr Nicholas Clegg and the noble inconsistent with the Deputy Prime Minister’s evidence to us that and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, put his ‘unambiguous aim’ is to, ‘make the legislature more accountable to the electorate and to introduce the mechanisms by which forward. people can exercise greater control over politicians’. Our evidence suggests very clearly that this unambiguous aim may not be 4.30 pm achieved by this Bill”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; cols. 1005-1006.] There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that this The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield said: proposal is put forward as means of gluing the coalition “As well as the biorhythmic arithmetic, we need to consider together. Mr David Laws says that that is the reason. the quality of government and political life in the fifth year of As I said at Second Reading, there is no need for an Parliaments that have gone to the wire. They have rarely been Act of Parliament, bogusly dressed up as a piece of shining patches in the life of Administrations. Ministers are often tired and accident prone. The palette of the electorate becomes high constitutional principle, in order to achieve that. progressively more jaded. A kind of pre-electoral blight sets in. Of All you need do is stick by your word if you are a Tory course it could be argued that the final year of a fixed-term or a Liberal Democrat. I ask the coalition to please four-year Parliament would be similarly blighted. Certainly, the think again about our constitution. Is it genuinely press would succumb to its customary pre-election frenzy as the better for Britain and for encouraging trust in our last year deepened. However, the blight is likely to be less pronounced politicians to say that now there should be longer towards the end of a four-year span than a five-year one, and between elections than previously? I earnestly ask the accountability is more likely to be enhanced by a four-year cycle”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 935.] coalition to consider whether the electorate might My noble friend Lord Grocott said: think that the coalition is doing this so that it can stay in power for as long as possible. “There is no doubt that the fifth year of a Parliament, in our constitutional history and experience if not in theory, is nearly That sense is perhaps increased by the broken promises always a completely unsatisfactory year”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; the coalition has made in relation to the conduct of col. 958.] the Bill. On 25 May 2010, Mr David Heath, the The overwhelming view expressed during the course Deputy Leader of the House, said that there would be of the Second Reading debate, with the exception of no guillotines—but there were. He said that he would the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, and favour pre-legislative scrutiny as long as it did not lead some Back-Benchers on the Government’s side, was the Bill to go over into the next Session. Despite the that five-years as the norm is a bad idea. That was the fact that this Session was then extended until May weight of the evidence before the Select Committee 2012, he reneged on that particular promise. This is a and the experience of active politicians such as my matter of some importance and it is not too late for noble friend Lord Grocott, so where is the evidence in the coalition to rethink what is best for the British favour of five years? I have looked hard to find it. I constitution and to perhaps accept the overwhelming 479 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 480 weight of evidence from academics, active politicians, the noble Baroness. Lady Taylor. I would assume that committees that have looked at it, the Minister’s own the noble Lord, Lord Plant, was also of that view, party, my party, my noble friend Lord Plant, the three having regards to the conclusions of the Plant commission, respected Back-Benchers who over the 10 years since although he did not in fact mention this particular 1993 have introduced fixed-term Parliament Bills—Tony point in the course of his speech. Wright, David Howarth and my noble friend Lord Of the notable exceptions, I regret very much not Rooker—all of whom have favoured four years. being able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, Does the noble and learned Lord not think that or the noble Lord, Lord Marks, who favoured five maybe five years is the wrong length of time and that years rather than four because they thought that four four years is right? If he is not able to persuade the years would not allow long enough for sensible policy- coalition to change its mind, I hope that this House, making and parliamentary debate. I accept that during having considered the evidence, will conclude that the the fourth year of a four-year Parliament the coming right way to protect the constitution is to support the general election would begin to loom large but, even amendment and reduce the period of the fixed term to so, four years is surely long enough for the electorate four years. I beg to move. to judge the Government’s performance to date. That is what in a democracy matters most and it is what Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I will make a brief speech Professor Oliver meant—I think it was her—when she since I have put my name to the amendment. In the referred to the democratic deficit if we chose five years course of his reply at Second Reading, the noble and rather than four. That is clearly what Professor Bogdanor learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, described meant when he said that five years would make Parliament the question now before the Committee as “the key less accountable to the public. In addition to those issue”. He went to on to say that, theoretical arguments from eminent experts, there is “there is no absolutely right or wrong answer in that regard—it is the practical argument that four years fits in better a judgment”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11, col. 1044.] with the devolved institutions. That point has been made by many noble Lords in the So what are the Government’s arguments in favour course of the debate. Unfortunately, to describe something of five years? They are not altogether apparent. I as a question of judgment does not necessarily make looked carefully at what Mr Harper, the Minister in the answer any easier but it does, I suggest, point the charge of the Bill, had to say on the subject when he way to the right starting place. In this case, that must was pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater. be to look at what other sound judges have said on the He said: subject, especially those who have made a study of our “If we had been starting with a clean sheet of paper, we might constitution. That is surely a better approach than have reached a different conclusion, but we started from our simply, for example, counting up the number of countries existing position where the length of a Parliament is up to five years”. worldwide which have chosen five years rather than He was saying that the Government might well have four, or four years rather than five. chosen four years but for the fact that five years is the I wish to start with two of the witnesses who gave current maximum under the Parliament Act 1911. I evidence before the Select Committee, Professor Dawn simply do not follow the logic of that argument. If we Oliver and Professor Bogdanor. It happens that I are trying to do our best to find the right number of know them both; they are both pre-eminent in the years for a fixed term of Parliament by taking all field of constitutional law and practice and they both relevant factors into account, surely of all the factors say that they would choose four years rather than five. the current maximum is the least relevant, unless you So did Professor Bradley—and I hope that the Committee take as your objective giving the Government of the will forgive me for simply mentioning their names, day, whether they be Labour or Conservative, as long without quoting from them—along with Professor as possible within the existing maximum? The objective Padgett, Dr Milner and Dr Fox. None of those witnesses should be entirely different; to make the Government who gave evidence expressed a view in favour of five and, indeed, Parliament itself more accountable to the years. In the other place, Professor Robert Hazell public. preferred four years, as did Professor Blackburn, whose In conclusion, briefly, what is before us today is a evidence is important because he is the man who has constitutional issue. It is not, perhaps, of the greatest made a particular study of this very issue. So the importance but it is certainly of some importance professional evidence is really unanimous; it is certainly and it would therefore be highly desirable to reach a all one way. In the Constitution Committee, the noble consensus if we can. Unfortunately, there is no room Lord, Lord Renton, tested the witnesses giving evidence, for a compromise between four years and five years. but it is fair to say that they did not hedge in any way, We often reach a consensus in that way but no one, I or flinch from what they had said. So it is not surprising think, suggests a fixed term of four and a half years. that the Constitution Committee came down as strongly When the Government chose five years, they could not as it did in favour of four years. In contrast, the have had before them the evidence which is now before Government’s reply to the committee’s report, in us so, like the noble and learned Lord, I hope very paragraphs 12 to 15, seems feeble in the extreme. much that they will give way on this occasion and If academic evidence was all one way, so also with accept the amendment. If they do not and insist on two or three notable exceptions were the views expressed their opinion in this matter, despite the great weight of at Second Reading in this House. I have in mind the opinion the other way, there will be little point in noble Lord, Lord Anderson—again I shall simply list anyone ever giving evidence before Select Committees the names—and the noble Lords, Lord Hennessy, again. They will simply be wasting their time. For that Lord Grocott, Lord Norton and Lord Morgan, and reason, I will support the amendment. 481 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 482

Lord Stirrup: My Lords, a key argument advanced 100 seats, so they went for a compromise of 50. On the by the Government in favour of five-year fixed terms basis of that, I say to the noble and learned Lord, as opposed to those of four years is that it will improve Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that perhaps there could be a overall government effectiveness, because there will be compromise here but it could be three years rather fewer elections and therefore less distraction to the than four or five. Government in having to fight them. In mulling over I turn more seriously to the question of four years. this question, I have found it useful to think about the As the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, the whole lifespan of a Government rather than the individual Minister acknowledged at Second Reading that this terms that go to make that up. Modern experience was a judgment and there was no absolutely right or seems to be that most Governments serve for two or wrong answer. I feel that the Government have made three terms. They occasionally serve for one or four the wrong judgment in going for five years rather than but two or three seems to be the norm. four. On that basis, modern experience is that a two-term There is a lot to quote from earlier debates. I have Government will serve for about nine years and a chosen the quote from Herbert Asquith that is in the three-term Government for about 13. That is because report, partly because it was exactly 100 years and one most Governments go to the polls every four years, month ago today when he said that we should be except in their final term when they realise that the jig desirous of a House of Commons that is, is probably up and hang on for as long as possible. “always either fresh from the polls which gave it authority, Actual experience since the Second World War is that or—and this is an equally effective check upon acting in defiance two-term Governments have served for even shorter of the popular will—it is looking forward to the polls at which it periods, because of the narrowness of their initial will have to render an account of its stewardship”.—[Official victory and the need to go to the country early to try Report, Commons, 21/2/1911; col. 1749.] to secure a workable majority. Even setting that to one More recently, the noble and learned Lord, Lord side, we have two-term Governments of nine years Wallace of Tankerness, said on 1 March: and three-term Governments of 13 years under the “as the election comes up accountability is a very, very strong current system. thing indeed”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 1045.] Under the proposals in the Bill, we would have For any MP, he went on to say, an election is very Governments of 10 years or 15 years. However, in the effective for accountability. second or third term of each Government, they seem to run out of steam. The toxins that are produced by The Deputy Prime Minister, who has already been reshuffled Ministers and disaffected and disappointed quoted, claimed that the Government’s ambitious Back-Benchers build up to such a degree that the programme would transfer power away from Parliament Government find it increasingly difficult to provide and empower people. So we have to ask why the coherent and decisive leadership. They therefore end Government want to diminish accountability by extending either their second or third term in a rather weakened the life of the other place from four years to five. It state. It seems to me that these dynamics are likely to cannot be about increasing accountability. As the noble occur at about the same pace under whichever system and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has suggested, to we adopt so it seems likely that, under the Bill’s think about two periods of five years—that is, 10 years proposals, we would have weakened Governments limping —is what makes me think that the figure of five is on for about one or two years longer than they currently wrong. Ten years seems to be too long. Someone just do. I find it hard to see how that can be construed as short of their 18th birthday might have to wait until an overall increase in government effectiveness. Indeed, they were 23 to vote, and they would be 28 before they it seems quite the opposite; that four-year fixed terms could vote again. The period from 18 to 28 is the whole would probably produce such an increase in effectiveness, of the setting down of one’s life, but the Government rather than the reverse. are suggesting having only one vote during that time. Perhaps I might make one final point. I may have a Similarly, imagine a Government with a small majority rather idiosyncratic view of this but the essential and, or indeed no overall control. It would be extremely indeed, the defining characteristic of any democratic hard to run the country like that, as I know, but the electoral system of whatever model is the unassailable Government would be denied the right to go for a power and right to remove incumbents. This is to say working majority, somewhat dreading every death or not that doing so at too frequent an interval is conducive resignation and the resultant by-election—or maybe to effective government but that one should be very hoping for them so that they could then engineer a cautious about extending the period at which that is defeat on a confidence vote. Leaving it that way to call customarily done. That seems to me to be inescapable an election could mean that it would happen at the under five-year fixed-term Parliaments. very worst of times: in the middle of a freezing winter, during school holidays, in a financial crisis or even at a time of national mourning, to say nothing of major 4.45 pm international events or indeed the convenience of Her Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, I am Majesty. Some of those questions are about the principle tempted to talk about the word “consensus”. I said on of a fixed-term Parliament, but they are far more day one of the Committee that New Zealand had a likely to arise and be more acute with an over-lengthy three-year term of Parliament. When the cut in the five-year Parliament. number of UK seats was devised as a consensus The question is particularly pertinent for a coalition. between the two parts of the coalition, I think that one A coalition is new to the electorate and therefore lot wanted to get rid of 60 seats and the other wanted needs a vote sooner on its performance than five years. 483 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 484

Also, because its manifesto was never put to the Don’t take the sleeper up to Glasgow and then get electorate or endorsed at a general election, it seems back down for the vote. Tell them that your job is to be right that it should not be run for a full five years. in the House of Commons”. However, the Executive Although in general four years is right, it is even more of the House of Commons at that time were pleased acute either for a Government with a small majority to have topical debates with no votes so that everyone or indeed for a new coalition that four years down the who wanted to could get away, which meant that more line rather than five is the right time to involve the power was put into the hands of the Executive. That is electorate in whether they wish that Government to contrary to what the Liberals have said on the Floor continue. of the House of Commons and, indeed, here. They have said, “We don’t want the Executive to get more power”. Lord Martin of Springburn: I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about the length of Last week the Minister said what fantastic power the period between elections in normal times. If it is we were giving to the Prime Minister by enabling him agreed that five years will be written into legislation, or her to call an election on a date of their choosing, over a period of 20 years the electorate will be denied when the polls looked good. The coalition comprises an opportunity to go to the polls to decide what form two parties that fought like cats and dogs in the House the Government will take and which Government will of Commons—I had to hold their jackets at times— be returned. We had an opportunity last week to hear because their policies were so different. However, the the Minister on this matter. The noble and learned leaders of those parties said: “We are getting together Lord, Lord Wallace, was good enough to talk about it. to sort out the financial problems of this nation; that’s He said that the present system gave awesome power why we are together, but here’s the wee deal—that we to the Prime Minister of the day. However, what seems get a five-year Parliament”. There are people with to have happened in the room that was talked about in more knowledge of political history than I but I put it the story from the autobiography of Mr Laws is that to the Committee that Ted Heath might have had the awesome power was given to the people around that power to go to the country that the Minister talks table. It strikes me that many of the people around about, but it did not work for him. Ted Heath said: that table, who may be very good at economics and “It’s me or the miners”, but the country did not other matters, were not experienced parliamentarians. re-elect him. He did not serve his full term. Therefore, If they had been experienced parliamentarians, they the great power that he had did not work in his favour; would have said what I am saying today: four years is nor did it work in Harold Wilson’s favour in 1970. I far better than five. remember hearing as a young canvasser that Labour I ask the Minister to consider four years for the would win again, and the polls all said that. Harold sake of the House and how it operates. I know what he Wilson was perceived as the winner, but during the said last week, when we had a warm-up and were able 1970 election word came through that he would lose, to hear some of his thinking. That is good; we could and he did. The same happened with Jim Callaghan. then think about what he had to say and come back, Had Jim Callaghan gone to the country before the as we have today. I think the Minister said that his case great winter of discontent, perhaps he would have was that in the fifth year Members of Parliament won—who knows? The Prime Minister may have awesome decide that they want to be in their constituencies. power but it has been shown that that power does not That is not because they are lazy—far from it. They always work in his favour. want to work on the hustings; they know an election is The noble and gallant Lord spoke about disgruntled coming up and want to be in their constituency. The Ministers. I suggest that there will be a stack of Minister’s case was that they would do that in the disgruntled former Ministers. I can hear them now fourth year. However, they would not do that because saying, when they were appointed, “Tony said I am the the Government would not run out of legislation in only one who can do this job”. Then they go on to Sky the fourth year. Therefore, if Members of Parliament TV—the lovely thing about Sky TV is that if you missed three-line Whips, it would be duly noted in cannot sleep in the middle of the night, you go on to their constituency. Constituents would say, “Why was Sky TV—and the same Minister says, “What a wonderful he or she here on a Tuesday, missing a three-line Prime Minister we have”. I do not know whether it Whip?”. That is an incentive to keep Members of was reported that one Minister said: “I would jump Parliament here in the fourth year, rather than in the under a bus for the Prime Minister”. I would not jump fifth. under a bus for anybody. I do not know whether it was I bolster the case about Governments running out a moving bus or a stationary bus but it shows how of legislation in the fifth year. The House of Commons much that Minister loved the Prime Minister. Then Library tells me that in 2009-10 Session, there was not there is a reshuffle because the Prime Minister has a one vote taken on the Floor of the House of Commons difficulty; he has to get fresh blood in because the on a Thursday. They had topical debates on a Thursday. Back-Benchers are saying, “They’ve had their turn at Some were on very important matters but they were being Ministers; we want to be Ministers now”. debates. On Thursdays we turned the House of Commons I do not want to mention names but it has been into a debating society, which meant there was no reported that the gentleman who wrote the book record of whether anyone turned up to represent their might get back into government. I say good luck and constituents. I reiterate what I said the other week. three cheers to him. However, there are too many Tam Dalyell, an excellent parliamentarian, told me as Ministers on the Front Bench so somebody must fall a young MP, “Michael, if they want you, tell them you off the end. The logic of that gentleman getting back will be available on a Saturday or a Friday night. into government is that someone else will lose their job 485 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 486

[LORD MARTIN OF SPRINGBURN] the general election is a long time ahead. Of course and become a disgruntled former Minister. The lovely that would happen here as well. Therefore, we in this thing about that is that the same people, when they House have to accept—in my case reluctantly—that lose their jobs, do not say any more that the Prime the House of Commons has sent us the Bill. We have Minister is a great person. They sidle up to you in the the ultimate power to reject it completely. However, tea room and say, “He’s a rotter. He’s a bounder”. that would not be an advisable course for your Lordships’ That gave me an opportunity to say, “But you were House to take, even though we would be entirely not saying that about him two years ago”. The media within our rights to take it. Instead, we should decide then make mischief because they have a pool of individuals whether the five-year term enshrined in the Bill is the who are willing to criticise the Government. right way forward. That then leads me to consider the people who The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister matter—the electorate. They turn on their televisions, have put themselves into a difficult position, because if as do the politicians, and they say, “What is going on we insert “four” rather than “five” into the legislation, here? They are all fighting like cats and dogs”. They their resolution made last year to serve five years will then think of the old saying in the Bible that a house be blown apart. Of course, the House of Commons divided against itself will surely fall, and they say to would send back the Bill. Therefore, I suggest that themselves, “We elected these people to be unified. perhaps the best way forward is to accept, with whatever They promised us unity and now they are fighting degree of reluctance but with total understanding, with one another”. That will happen in the fifth year. the five-year wish of the Prime Minister and Deputy For the sake of running the House properly, four years Prime Minister, but then to look to the future beyond is far better than this fixed five years. that to consider what should be the normal life of a Parliament. On that question, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in an excellent speech, put his 5pm finger on a number of very important points. Beyond Lord Cormack: My Lords, I am tempted briefly to 2015, it would be prudent and sensible to listen to the intervene, partly because of what the noble Lord, advice not only of many theoretical experts and academics, Lord Martin, said. I always remember that one of his but of others who have had practical experience of predecessors—the late, great Jack Weatherill, who many politics, and to say that if the Government insist on of your Lordships will remember from his time in this fixed-term Parliaments after 2015, the term should be House—once said to me, “If you have any doubt, do four years. not go in and listen to the debate; just stay out and vote”. I must say that I have heard every word in this Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am not sure that I would debate and uttered one or two myself, but the more I be happy with the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord look at the Bill and listen to what noble Lords say, the Cormack, made, although I can see merit in it. However, more convinced I am that this is a wholly unnecessary I was very interested in what he said about the Bill piece of legislation. laying bare the criticism that has been made of the If the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister Prime Minister for using as a defence of the five-year wish to make a binding undertaking to go to the Parliament and of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill the country in May 2015, there is nothing in our current argument that somehow it will take away power from legislation that would stop them. I can well understand the Prime Minister. It will take away power from why the two leaders of the new Government—a coalition subsequent Prime Ministers. As David Laws’ book which is a new experiment in many ways—wanted a and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spelt out clearly, period of five years. God bless them, they can have it was the Prime Minister who decided, with the Deputy five years, and I genuinely wish them success; but I am Prime Minister, that the next general election would not so naïve as to suppose that if there is some be five years hence, and gave the precise date. He did it extraordinary rift or argument during those five years, far longer in advance than previous Prime Ministers, all those protestations will fall to the side and there but none the less he made the decision himself. will be an election. The Bill provides for an escape I will address a comment made by a number of clause, in Clause 2, which we shall debate next week. I noble Lords in various debates that deserves a response have tabled a significant amendment to delete it and to from people like me who do not like the Bill but feel replace it with something else. However, I must not that if we must have fixed terms, we would prefer four rehearse those arguments now. years to five. The criticism directed toward us is that The more I listen to this debate, the more two the worries in the final year of a five-year Parliament things come to mind. The noble Lord, Lord Martin, are not significantly different from the difficulties that talked about the fifth year. Everything he said was come at the conclusion of a four-year Parliament. The correct. I was there for the five-year Parliaments that noble Lord, Lord Cormack, touched on that. The existed between 1970 and last year. It is quite true that, argument is that people will be electioneering for a full in every case, the fifth year was the least glorious. year, knowing when the election will come, that the However, it would be a little naïve to suggest that there Government will gear their legislative programme to would not be a concentration on the forthcoming the timing of the election, and that the situation will election in the fourth year. One has only to look across not be significantly different regardless of whether the Atlantic at the ridiculous two-year cycles for the that election comes at the end of four years or five. House of Representatives and the four-year presidential However, it is my experience, and that of many cycle to see that potential presidential candidates are other noble Lords who have spoken, that a five-year already being lined up by the Republicans although Parliament historically has been less successful than a 487 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 488 four-year Parliament, and that the fifth year is always sit. Therefore, it must surely be true that there would a tired and weary year, when the authority of the have been fewer. I think it is incredibly unlikely that Government is running down and may or may not get the two-thirds provision would have precipitated an renewed. It is often a very bad-tempered year, with election. The only occasion when there was an early constant demands from the Opposition for the election due to parliamentary activity was when the Government to resign and put their record to the Jim Callaghan Government lost the vote of confidence, electorate. I will not quote names, but many Ministers and that would have applied under this legislation. In in the fifth year of a Parliament want to retire but fact, it might not have applied and poor Jim Callaghan know that it would be disloyal to the Government to would have had to enter a 14-day cooling-off period, quit when an election is coming at a proximate but or whatever you call it. That has always struck me as indeterminate date. A Parliament gets tired and needs an odd suggestion. refreshing. It is almost a relief when the election I have a final question for the noble and learned comes and a new Parliament can, with renewed vigour, Lord, Lord Wallace. The defence that his leader gave come into operation with a new Government, although of the proposal for a five-year Parliament is contained not necessarily of a new party. All sorts of things in the Second Reading debate of the Fixed-term contribute to that. Members of Parliament announce Parliaments Bill. When challenged as to the justification their retirement during the course of a Parliament, but for five years, he said: there would be far more such announcements towards “Leaving aside the very short Parliaments, half of all Parliaments the end of a five-year Parliament than towards the end since the war have run for more than four years, so five years is … of a four-year one. I had better be careful how I say in keeping with our current arrangements”.—[Official Report, this but people who know that they are retiring do not Commons, 13/9/10; col. 625.] give it quite the full welly as they would if they I do not know what he did at university, but it was not thought they might be sitting in the following term. logic. That is the equivalent of a batsman saying, “My There is also a practical problem. This is probably batting average would have been 100 if you eliminate rather an esoteric point but I think that many in the the ducks”. Basically that is what he is doing in terms Chamber will recognise it. With fixed five-year terms, of averages. We need from the noble and learned when you have to commit yourself to fighting the next Lord, Lord Wallace, a better justification for five years general election, which is normally around half-way than has been offered to the Committee so far. through a Parliament, you are committing yourself to remaining in Parliament for at least eight years—no one dares to call a by-election these days, or at least 5.15 pm they do so only very rarely—and that is a very big Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, commitment to make, certainly when you get to about accepting, as I suspect we all do, that this is a matter of your mid-50s. judgment, I suggest to the Committee that the judgment Therefore, in terms of the last year, there is a referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd significant difference between a five-year and a four-year of Berwick, is best made by a serious assessment of Parliament. Of course, this country has the advantage the balance between, on the one hand, the likelihood— of a wonderfully flexible constitution, so we are able although not the certainty under the provisions of empirically to compare what has happened in the past the Bill—of less frequent elections and, on the other, with four and five-year Parliaments. I hope that I have the stability that a five-year Parliament offers and the at least attempted to answer the criticism that it really opportunity for the electorate to bring a greater maturity does not make much difference whether it is a four or a of judgment because of the experience that they have five-year term. of the Parliament and the Government after five years The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, may rather than four years. In making that judgment I think that I am rather a sad figure but over the suggest that the historical precedents since the war are weekend I reflected on what he said in his response last of limited assistance, precisely because we have not week. He said something that threw me—I had not had fixed-term Parliaments. thought of it. I was arguing, as I am now, for a One complaint of those who argue for four years is four-year Parliament—not of a fixed term but normally that the Bill substitutes five years for a maximum of four years—and I challenged him on why on earth a five years and a norm of four years. That is the effect Liberal Democrat within a Government would say of the Bill, but the complaint ignores the fact that the that the electorate should be consulted less frequently, effect in practice of the 1911 Act has been that, where because I suggest to the Committee that that is what a Government have had a working majority, the would happen. I suggested that since the Second World Parliament has lasted five years if the Prime Minister War there would have been 13 rather than 18 elections has believed that he or she will lose, which means that and the noble and learned Lord said, “Ah, you can’t he or she has stayed for the full term. The noble and really assume that that is the case because, under the gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord provisions of this Bill, who knows how many elections Martin, argued that the fifth year tends to be a lame-duck there would have been. Some might have been instigated year—an ineffective year. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, by the two-thirds rule”. On reflection, that is not the said much the same thing. It is an ineffective year strongest of arguments. I hope that in responding to because, it is said, in the case of five-year Parliaments, this debate he will at least concede that there could not the Parliament is tired and expects to lose. However, have been more general elections than there would you cannot deduce from that that, where everyone have been had his Act been in operation, because there knows that the next election is fixed for the end of the is a maximum amount of time that a Parliament can five years, there will be similar exhaustion. 489 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 490

[LORD MARKS OF HENLEY-ON-THAMES] the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is now In the past, when a Prime Minister has expected to reading—that that period gives more stable government. win, he or she has gone after four years. That analysis The question for this House is, in the light of what has is borne out by the elections of 1964, 1979, 1997 and happened, to consider whether five years is better than 2010. In each of those years, the election was held at four. The history of the Liberal Democrat policy on the end of five years and the Government went on to the point does not assist us. We now have to bring a lose. An exception is the election of 1992, when the new and balanced judgment to the question now Government expected to lose and were rather surprised before Parliament. to win. The only other exception to that analysis, although it is not a real exception, is the election of Lord Cormack: Surely if five years is what the leaders February 1974, which noble Lords will know was held of the coalition want—I fully understand that, as I for special reasons. However, that election gives us a have made quite plain—we do not need the legislation useful analysis of whether it is true to say that there for that. How does the noble Lord answer that point? would have been four fewer elections or whether you They can have that under current legislation. can count the elections and say that there would have been that many fewer. I suggest that under the provisions of this Bill it is highly likely that there would in any Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: The noble Lord case have been an election in 1974 because when the is quite right to point that out, but it has long been then Prime Minister said, “I want an election to Liberal Democrat policy, with which I firmly agree determine the issue of who governs the country, the and consider extremely important, that we should Government or the miners”, the then Opposition to have fixed-term Parliaments in the long term, because Mr Heath would have accepted the challenge and they make a level playing field. The question that we voted for an election, so that Parliament would have are considering in the context of the Bill is whether been dissolved on a two-thirds majority basis. It is not those Parliaments should be for four years or five. It is possible to say how many fewer elections there might of no assistance to say that we can fix a Parliament for have been. The Bill makes the basis for Dissolution five years now and decide later. We are determining more logical and removes what we say is the unfairness the right period under the Bill. This Parliament cannot of allowing the Prime Minister sole charge of when bind its successors, as the noble Lord plainly knows. If there is an election. a future Parliament should take a different view, it is for that Parliament to legislate, as my noble friend As we know, the average length of Parliaments pointed out. However, on consideration of this Parliament since the war has been three years and 10 months. I and what we should do now, we say that, as a matter of suggest that the calculation of that average term is of principle, it is right to go for five years. no assistance. The principal point against the relevance of such an average is that it takes into account all Understandable concern has been expressed on all those early elections called by the Prime Minister in sides of the House and by the Constitution Committee the exercise of precisely the power that the Bill is about the need for pre-legislative scrutiny. If we accept designed to remove. Secondly, it takes into account the that there is a need for pre-legislative scrutiny of very early elections of 1951, 1966 and October 1974. important legislation, then the first year of a Parliament In that sense, the noble, Lord Grocott, is right to say will generally be given over in respect of important that it leaves out the ducks, but those ducks are legislation to that scrutiny. important to leave out because, in the calculation of a sensible term for a Parliament with a working majority, Lord Cormack: Not this time. those Parliaments where the Government had no working majority and had to go to the country early are of no Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: I accept that; it assistance. gives rise to the concern that has been expressed and that I am, for these purposes, accepting. If it be the Lord Bach: I am interested in the noble Lord’s case that enactment of legislation starts in year two of arguments. He knows that his party’s policy for many a Parliament, and given the point made by the noble years was, honourably, that there should be fixed Lords, Lord Martin and Lord Grocott, which I think terms for four years. Did he support that policy? If we all accept, that the last year of a Parliament is given not, was he always a five-year man? If he did support over to preparing for a general election, a five-year that policy, when was it that he changed his mind to Parliament leaves a period of three years for positive five years? Was it, by any chance, around the time that legislation and a four-year Parliament leaves only two the coalition was formed? years, because we all accept that inevitably the imminence of Dissolution makes legislation more difficult, as the Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: That is a perfectly time is limited in the last year. I suggest to the House fair question, because it is well known that it was that the stability that is required for the convenient Liberal Democrat policy to go for four-year fixed and sensible passage of legislation is better achieved terms. However, it is quite clear that the formation of with three whole years between the first and last years. the coalition caused people to consider their policy In terms of government rather than simply legislation, and the arguments one way or the other. The coalition I also suggest that four years runs a danger of leading has put forward a programme for government. It is a to short-term planning, which inhibits a strategic approach considered view—which, I suggest, is no less right to all forms of activity in government. That point was because it is a view come to after negotiation, the well made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of negotiations to which Mr Laws refers in the book that Ilminster, at Second Reading. 491 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 492

On the other side, of course it is the case that I have been asked to vote on changing the system of regular recourse to the electorate is at the heart of our votes, which is being put to the people in the AV democratic system of government. However, there is referendum, without being told what is being proposed no doubt that Governments that are too driven by for people being elected to this House. All these things early electoral considerations may not be the best or keep being thrown at me by people who say, “Oh well, most effective Governments. The four-year term in the it is a matter of judgment”. In the end, a bit like the United States is frequently and rightly criticised for its dance of the seven veils, all will be revealed. However, shortened electoral cycle and for the fact that from far I want to know the whole picture now before I am too early in the term the Administration are looking asked to start pulling apart some of the parts of the for the prospects of re-election—all political eyes are structure of our constitution. The argument is therefore firmly fixed on the next election. surely that it would have been better if the coalition The last point is this: a shorter term has the effect of had concentrated on fewer Bills that made fewer changes depriving the electorate of the time to judge on mature to the constitution, had put them out for quick pre- reflection the effectiveness of government policy and legislative scrutiny and did not Christmas-tree them. legislation. That is particularly true of a reforming Those who have been in government know that the Government who reform the way in which the public minute the whole plethora of people in any department services are delivered and taxes and benefits are see a Bill looming, they start hanging little baubles on administered, as this Government will and as may be it, complicating it and muddying the whole picture. I the case with many future Governments. That is the am therefore uneasy. case because the preparations for the Dissolution and On the use of the term “judgment”, I think that it is an election come at a time when much of what the a bit arrogant of the coalition—a new form of government Government have done during the term, particularly in this country for a long time—to say, “We are making after the first year of the term—this brings me back to a judgment about when you can vote to judge us, and the point about pre-legislative scrutiny—has not had we are restricting the way in which it is going to be time to take effect, so the electorate have not had the done”. Perhaps, having a somewhat warped political opportunity to judge what the Parliament and the mind, I can see that it is just possible, in reaching Government have done during the term. an agreement to form a coalition, that neither party The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, laughed trusted the other and so the five years had to be set in when I talked about a matter of principle with reference concrete in case either one pulled the rug from under to what I had previously described, and continue to the other. However, I am then assured that in the describe, as a matter of judgment. Of course that is middle of the Bill is the opportunity for the Prime right, but I suggest that the better balance between Minister of the day suddenly to pull the rug out anyway, four years and five years is the one that the Government although I suppose he would have to get his Deputy have struck and incorporated in this Bill as unamended. Prime Minister to support him. On the argument about the length of time that it 5.30 pm takes to bring in legislation, in my view the public out Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I keep there have the right to expect to be able to voice their hearing the words, “It is a matter of judgment”. I view on what happens in the future. It is just possible heard them from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on that, within the next two years, some people who are several occasions in connection with giving the electorate currently members of the coalition will not want to the power to decide. I just heard a reference to the be tied to a fixed term of five years. They could be importance of time for pre-legislative scrutiny and members of either party; it is not always the most allowing people who are about to vote an opportunity adulterous one who ends up getting divorced. to maturely evaluate the Government’s policy. I am beginning to feel as though we live in a different place, I am concerned. Why cannot we have a big picture because we have a whole plethora of constitutional for all these constitutional changes? Why cannot we reforms before us, who have to vote on them, with no substitute this judgment that we ought to be laying in opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny and no opportunity concrete an agreement of convenience for this particular to see how the first bit, the second bit, the third bit and Government? Why are we wasting our time legislating the fourth bit come together. to set that in concrete? We are wasting our time because they can do that anyway. They do not need this Bill to Then, in the middle of it all, is the bit of the Bill do that, so why on earth are we being told that they that perhaps worries me even more than the five and do? I am beginning to get suspicious, because from four years: who, how and in what circumstances the certain Benches—from parties to this Government—I proposed five or even four years could be varied. I keep hearing, “Well, we are voting for this now. It is have heard a variety of ways in which a Prime Minister not what we really want, but we will get what we want can decide that it is a good time for an election if he next time”. I have met the odd person out there who thinks it is in his interest, although I think that convincing has said to me, “Hey, I watched that debate, and the the Opposition that it is a good time for an election Lib Dems said that they do not really like AV, but it is will be quite a hard task. Having heard all these better than what we have, and anyway it is a road to arguments, however, I am not allowed to see what this somewhere else”. coalition Government propose to do. This is against a background of assurances that I keep getting that they Finally, I cannot resist remembering when I sat on know where they are going and they know who is those Benches over there during the first stage of going with them, but it sure ain’t me because they are House of Lords reform. I heard a member of Her not telling me where they are going. Majesty’s loyal Opposition at the time—a former Home 493 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 494

[BARONESS FARRINGTON OF RIBBLETON] So what has been the process for this Bill? There has Secretary—come out with the words, “The wicked been no manifesto commitment to its key detail or thing the Labour Government are trying to do is force any compelling argument for it. There has not been a an extension of the life of government”. Who is doing Green Paper, a White Paper or public consultation. it? Not us. Can we please have the big picture, can we The process has consisted simply of ramming this ask the British people what they think, and can we not hastily and poorly drafted Bill through Parliament as patronise them by saying, “You need longer to be able quickly as the business managers can get it through. to judge us”. This creates a perception which has been widely voiced. I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Wills: My Lords, I think most would agree Lord Falconer for telling the House about the account that there is merit in the arguments on both sides of given in Mr David Laws’ history of the formation of the debate on whether the term of Parliament should the coalition agreement. I am sure that Mr Laws did be fixed. However, if there is merit in the argument for not wish to be quite as unhelpful to his colleagues who the term being fixed at five years, it is merit that passed remain in government as he has turned out to be. by both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats Nevertheless, I think that the citizen might legitimately until the coalition agreement enlightened them. Nearly ask, “Why did the Government suddenly abandon a a year after that agreement, Ministers have still not historic Liberal Democrat commitment to a fixed managed to find a way of articulating that case four-year term?”. Why would two parties which are persuasively. locked in an uneasy embrace, trying to find a way to govern together that does not lead to an electoral The Government’s proposition is that they have a annihilation for one or other or both of them, suddenly mandate for this proposal—this was one of the arguments decide to extend the fixed term to five years? used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, on Second Reading—because an appetite for political My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s quote reform was manifested at the last general election. from Mr George Osborne tells us everything that we That is a questionable proposition, to put it at its need to know about this. The Government have yet to politest, because it conflates an arguable general distrust come up with one good argument about why the and dislike of politicians with a wish for a specific motivation for this move to a five-year term is nothing proposal for a five-year fixed term for Parliament. The more than the search for short-term, partisan, political Government’s argument that five years is somehow advantage, seeking to stay in power, locked together, part of our political culture—the Deputy Prime Minister for as long as they possibly can. Sadly—I say sadly has made this argument—ignores inconvenient facts because I know that many Members on the Liberal about the average length of post-war Parliaments. Of Democrat Benches have long and honourable histories the last seven Parliaments, for example, four have of espousing constitutional reform—this sort of short- lasted for about four years and three for five years. term partisan manoeuvring is coming to characterise Moreover, the proposition, which Ministers have also this Government’s constitutional legislation. It injects advanced, that the Parliament Act somehow supports poison into the system. It creates suspicion where this proposal confuses setting a maximum term with there should be trust and volatility where there should fixing a norm. Then, of course, there is the selective be stability. This really is no way to legislate for quoting of international examples, nearly always in constitutional matters. discussions of constitutional reform—a refuge for the intellectually desperate. Accepting this amendment would help to neutralise this poison, but I fear that the Minister—characteristically Does it matter that the Government have so amiably, no doubt—will try to find reasons for resisting inadequately made the case for a fixed term of five it. I fear that the Government will ignore the reservations, years? I think it does. This is not a matter of a finely which we have heard over and over again in this balanced judgment one way or another, with there debate, which has gone on now for nearly one and a being really nothing very much to choose between a half hours, just as they have ignored all the other four-year term and a five-year term. Of course there is doubts about their constitutional legislation, and that an element of judgment in these things, but, as the they will just whip this Bill through. Despite that, I noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, so eloquently set hope that the noble and learned Lord who moved this out, the overwhelming weight of expert opinion is in amendment will test the opinion of the House on the favour of four years. Anything longer inevitably—logically, matter, if not now then at Report. This House should inevitably—delays the calling to account of the Executive, do its constitutional duty whatever view Ministers and it creates an accumulating democratic deficit. take of theirs. In the absence of any persuasive arguments for a five-year term, this flaw is toxic. It is particularly toxic because of the process by which this Bill has been Lord Dobbs: This House pursues this discussion brought before Parliament and the damaging perception with considerable passion and at times almost with an that this has created the motivation behind the selection element of ferocity, which is how it should be. But of five years as the fixed term for Parliament. Due I have to admit that it has left me rather confused. I process and perceptions of motivation matter especially have done my best to follow the arguments. Should it for constitutional legislation because they can create be four years or five years? Should it be three years public trust in the integrity of our constitutional and 10 months or some other figure? Statistics have arrangements or they can destroy it. A constitution been hurled around this House and given a mythical, which does not command the trust and respect of the almost mystical, significance and, at times, even an citizens it serves is a constitution without value. ethical significance. Some say that “this figure is right 495 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 496 and that figure is wrong”, and not just wrong but glorious of years—but it is only the uncertainty that downright wicked. It is enough to make a young chap causes distraction, which is what this Bill does away giddy. with. Give a Prime Minister a certain election date For better or worse, as a party official and a prime and, instead of confusion, there will be a reasoned, ministerial adviser, I was involved with the process possibly somewhat reckless, campaign of tax cuts, of helping to choose one or two election dates in the heady promises and kissed constituency babies—in 1880s and 90s. other words, business as usual. Of course, another argument has been put forward; Noble Lords: You said the 1880s. namely, that a five-year term deprives the electors of a more frequent choice than four years. The logic of that is, of course, indisputable. But, if the noble Lord will 5.45 pm forgive me, it is also absurd. Follow that logic and we Lord Dobbs: Did I? My memory does not go back would end up with elections every three years or quite that far but I thank noble Lords. I can confirm two years or perhaps every year. Looking at the US that there was nothing mythical or mystical about it congressional system where politicians are constantly and least of all could the process be described as campaigning, I am inclined to suggest that there is no ethical. There is only one reason why Prime Ministers obvious connection between more frequent elections choose this or that election date and that is because he on the one hand and better government on the other. or she thinks that the chosen date gives them the best Above all else, it is better government that we should possible chance of winning. For a party leader, elections be seeking. are rather like the gunfight of the OK Corral. There is There is no democratic deficit of the sort suggested no future for the loser; they are likely to be dragged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, out of the arena feet first and never seen again. Prime and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. There is no shortage Ministers sweat over these decisions—even the fragrant of elections. We have more elections for more Parliaments ones. than at any time in our history. But whether all those We keep hearing that four years is best. The question elections and elected politicians have given us better remains: why have Prime Ministers so often chosen to government I suspect is a matter to be discussed on hold an election after just four years? The answer is another day. very simple. Except in the most extreme circumstances The crucial point is this: should it be four years, they do not go earlier because there is nothing to be should it be five, or three point something or other? gained: they will only be accused of cutting and running. Having dismissed the relevance of so many statistics, They do not often carry on beyond four years for fear let me offer a few of my own. Looking back over the of running foul of events or the economy or the last eight elections, which takes us back an entire private excesses of some wayward Cabinet Minister. I generation or more to the dark days of 1974, the am afraid that these decisions have nothing to do with average lifespan of a Parliament has been nearly four the astrological significance of the figures four or five. and a half years. To me that is just as legitimate as the It has simply been a matter of self-preservation. figure which is so often quoted, that of three years and The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, spoke 10 months. But we are told that four years is what the about the natural rhythms. I think that in a previous people demand. If that is the case, where is the surge debate we heard someone refer to the natural biorhythms of public indignation, the outrage that our biorhythms of the British constitution, a point picked up in the have been disturbed and the voters left short-changed Select Committee report. I admire the noble and learned by four-and-a-half year or five-year parliaments? The Lord almost beyond expression. His knowledge of our argument about four years and only four years simply constitution is profound but I fear that his romantic will not wash. nature might have led him astray on this one. In my To garble the phrase, there are exaggerations, less than humble experience—Conservative chiefs of irrelevancies and political evidence. We have heard staff do not usually do humble or, if they do, they do plenty of all three in this debate. If we are looking for not tend to survive—it has nothing to do with biorhythms: a norm, it is four and a half years, not three years and it is simply the uncertainty of that fifth year that leads 10 months, at least in our recent history. What should Prime Ministers to opt for four—nothing else. But we read into that? Precisely nothing. Except that in remove that uncertainty, as this Bill does, and I suspect every one of the last eight elections, the Prime Minister that we will find that Prime Ministers are more than chose a polling date that was thought to be in his or delighted to soldier on to the end with absolutely no her interest. It is self-interest, not the national interest, complaint. They will carry on in Downing Street, their and there is no magic in a term of four years. That is biorhythms entirely undisturbed. After all, Prime Ministers because, of course, Prime Ministers have a terrible love office. They never know when to give up. They habit of stumbling to the conclusion that they are the hang on as long as possible, and almost always too national interest, and that is what lies behind these long, leaving their fingernails in the Downing Street statistics, nothing more. Statistics will not resolve this carpet as they say goodbye. issue for us; it is up to us. Another argument, which was picked up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord for Lord, Lord Martin, is that somehow a fifth year is giving way. He has mentioned the last eight elections. always unsatisfactory; that for some metaphysical reason I may be slow in my arithmetic, but I think that would the Government will run out of steam after four years. take us to 1979 as the first one he has chosen since We have heard of the term, the lame duck—the least there have been eight elections since then. I think he 497 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 498

[LORD BACH] years to legislate, not three, that if he had been in said that in the last eight elections, the Prime Minister Parliament as long as I have, he would pray for fewer has always chosen the date for his own benefit. I do Bills to come from a Government rather than more. So not think that that is something James Callaghan I do not think that the quality of a Government is could be accused of. measured by the number of Bills they introduce; I think exactly the reverse. Lord Dobbs: I think it takes us back to 1974. I well I have one anxiety, which I shall explain. This Bill remember Lord Callaghan, as he became. Indeed, he does not actually fix the term at five years, but at five first introduced me to this House by giving me tea years and two months. There is a distinct possibility here. I owe him a great deal and I have the most that, again and again, a Prime Minister would be able profound respect for him. But I am surprised that the to breach the standard convention that a term of five noble Lord should quote 1979 as being the pinnacle of years is the limit. That is a fundamental part of our constitutional principle. It was sheer self-interest based constitution. This Bill breaches that by allowing, in on the opinion polls, like it was for all other Prime Clause 1(5), for an extra two months. We ought to take Ministers. this very seriously. Prime Ministers can find good excuses to delay elections. As has been pointed out, if they see better a better chance two months hence, they Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I may be wrong, but my will find a way of waiting. I do not care how long this recollection is that Mr Callaghan went to the country goes on for—whether it goes on for 10-and-a-half because of a Motion of no confidence passed in the years—but we should take the breach of a very House of Commons. To describe him as choosing an fundamental political principle seriously. The advantage election date seems, if I may say so, a little misplaced. of my noble and learned friend’s amendment is that, even if a Prime Minister uses the two-month option, Lord Dobbs: The noble and learned Lord we would never breach the five-year rule. That is a misunderstands me. The election date that he was telling argument in favour of the amendment. going to choose was in the previous October, and that is where he got it wrong. In his own self-interest, he Lord Rennard: My Lords, in 2005, together with my thought that he should soldier on, despite the evidence. noble friend Lord Razzall, I was responsible for the Let me not be distracted, but I am surprised that the Liberal Democrat general election campaign. The noble and learned Lord remembers 1978 and 1979 so manifesto for that campaign contained a commitment fondly. I have to say that it is not an example that I to fixed-term Parliaments and specified terms of four would wish to follow. years. Obviously I have changed my mind, and I Statistics will not resolve this issue. In the decision should like to give the Committee three good reasons over whether it should be four years or five, I find why I have done so. However, before I do that, I would myself, rather oddly, agreeing with the Deputy Prime point out to some noble Lords opposite that only last Minister who, in a celebrated quote of his when asked year they fought a general election on a manifesto if he thought 12 months here or there mattered very promising that, if re-elected to government, the party much, replied, “No, I do”. I think that he summed up would legislate for fixed-term Parliaments. The party the situation admirably. So let us have five years. I do has still not said how it would have legislated to not know if it is a matter of principle, as my noble “ensure” that there would be fixed-term Parliaments, friend Lord Marks says—I probably would not go and made no mention whatever of what the term of that far—or of sheer practicality, but it is as close to those fixed-term Parliaments would be. If the case for the norm as four years. If any of the political parties four years rather than five years was so absolutely find it somehow offensive, they are entirely at liberty clear cut, as suggested by some noble Lords opposite, to change it. All they have to do is to win an election, I wonder why it was not included in the Labour Party and because of this Bill they will have the immense manifesto of only last year. benefit of knowing precisely when that election will The first reason why I think I have changed my be held. mind is through simply looking at the balance of a five-year term for a Parliament and how much of that Even taking the extreme position of supposing that time might be spent governing or how much doing every Parliament runs its full term, a premise that anything else. My noble friend Lord Marks of Henley- personally I doubt very much, surely extending the on-Thames referred to the case for more pre-legislative average length of a Parliament from the present four- scrutiny. I feel quite strongly that in the circumstances and-a-half years to five does no great disservice to our we have in this year in this Parliament, our legislation constitution, and by enhancing the possibility of sensible, would be rather better if there was more draft legislation long-term government, it offers considerable benefits and more pre-legislative scrutiny, and I hope that in compensation. when fixed terms of five years become the norm, there will be more of a case for such scrutiny in the first year Lord Desai: My Lords, I have a brief point to make, of a Parliament, which would be good for the governance but first I agree with the noble Lord who has just of the country. spoken that you cannot compare the frequency of Parliaments under a fixed-term arrangement with the Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Knowing that this frequency of Parliaments under a variable-term Parliament is going to last for five years, surely there is arrangement. They are not comparable things. I would time for pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. Why does also say to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, who expressed the noble Lord not support that position in relation to his distress that a Government would have only two this Bill? 499 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 500

Lord Rennard: In this Bill, we do not necessarily Noble Lords opposite had no answer to that point, know whether we will have five-year terms or not. If but decided that four years, seven months was how it the noble and learned Lord has his way, we will have should be. So, now, our legislation to regulate party four-year terms, not five years. political expenditure is entirely dependent on there being a five-year fixed-term Parliament and on those Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Am I given to understand controls coming in after four years and seven months that the reason for not giving this Bill any pre-legislative through to the 60th month of the Parliament, and no scrutiny is fear that it may not get through? other period.

Lord Rennard: No, indeed. There are many things Lord Tyler: I wonder whether my noble friend that require considerable scrutiny. But it seems to me recalls that not only the noble Lord, Lord Wills, but that the actual principle of a fixed-term Parliament all his political colleagues in another place promoted has been considered a number of times in a number of that legislation in terms precisely of the Political Parties, ways. I happen to think, for the reasons I am trying Elections and Referendums Act and the control of the to advance, that five years is more logical. The first expenditure of political parties. Why have the noble reason is that the first year of a Parliament would, Lord and all his colleagues changed their minds? I more normally in the future, provide more time for notice that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is back in his draft legislation and pre-legislative scrutiny. As we all usual place. Perhaps he would like to explain why he know, the last year of a Parliament tends to be given has changed his mind, having teased my noble friend over to government campaigns rather than legislation. on this point. If we had only four years and the first year was dominated more by pre-legislative scrutiny and the Lord Rennard: My Lords, I am sure that noble last year dominated more by campaigning, only two Lords opposite will have an opportunity to explain years of government out of the four would be effective. their points. Perhaps I may briefly explain the third That, as my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on- reason for my having decided that five years is better Thames said, is the problem with the US system. than four years. It is again a question of consistency. There, the period is four years, but everybody knows We agreed relatively recently and after lengthy debate—the that in the first two years the President governs and longest that we have had in the time that I have been then, after the mid-term elections, the second two here—on the system for parliamentary boundary reviews. years are all about campaigning for re-election. It has been established that there will be five-year There are two other points which are quite significant. reviews of constituency boundaries. It would be madness They have not been made in this debate and some to say that one should redraw the constituency boundaries noble Lords opposite may wish to address them. every five years but then not to have general elections every five years. To have a general election every four 6pm years but to redraw the boundaries every fifth year would put the two processes completely and quite Lord Wills: Before the noble Lord finishes telling us unfairly out of sync. On that basis, I decided that five why he changed his mind, perhaps I may point out years rather than four was more logical and more that all the considerations in favour of a five-year term democratic. that he is now advancing, and the issues that he has brought into play, have been well known for many years—in fact, all the years during which he was in Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Would the noble favour of a four-year fixed term. Can he tell us now Lord, Lord Rennard, care to comment on the fact that precisely why he changed his mind? the first reason he gave for changing his mind applied before he espoused and promoted his manifesto for the election? Between his saying, “Vote Liberal Democrat; Lord Rennard: The first reason is one about which we’re in favour of four years”and reaching the conclusion the noble Lord, Lord Wills, should know a great deal. that it should be five years, the people went and voted I pay great tribute to him as a genuine constitutional thinking that it was four. The noble Lord knew about reformer. He was responsible in the previous Parliament the legislation that had been passed by the previous and in the previous Government for changing significantly Government. I see a pattern however. I am grateful to some of the rules on party political expenditure. Noble him for his comment on five-yearly parliamentary Lords opposite shared my concern throughout much boundary reviews and I shall go away and think about of the 13 years and the three Parliaments of the that very seriously. previous Government about the lack of a level playing field in this country in party financing, which gave too much opportunity to extremely wealthy individuals to Lord Rennard: I thank the noble Baroness, particularly influence an election, particularly in constituencies, in for her latter point. In response to her first point, the immediate run-up to it. The noble Lord, Lord about how I should have known all this before 2005, Wills, introduced legislation in the previous Parliament I say very honestly that if all of us ignored all the which provided for control of that expenditure after evidence and all that we had learnt during the past six four years and seven months of a Parliament. There years, this place would be a poorer place and our would be no controls before that; they would apply legislation the poorer for it. I have reflected over the only after four years, seven months. I opposed that six years and have been convinced by many people legislation on the ground that it would work logically that there should more pre-legislative scrutiny and only if you had a five-year fixed-term Parliament. more draft legislation. In 2005, I did not feel so 501 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 502

[LORD RENNARD] because he was not in his place. He now is in his place strongly about that. Some of the more recent evidence and I think that he could put them a lot better than points me in the direction of being strongly in favour I can. They have been referred to, but I should like to of five-year, rather than four-year, fixed-term Parliaments. reinforce them. Like other noble Lords, I do not like this Bill. It is Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, if we are to an unnecessary Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have a fixed-term Parliament, and I believe that we said, if the Government had wanted to commit themselves should not, we will do less damage if we fix it at four to a five-year Parliament, they could have done that years rather than at five. I rather agree with the noble under the old legislation. For that reason, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and with Lord, Lord Grocott, said, this is not a Bill that binds my noble friend Lord Wills that there is little advantage the present Government so much as it does future to be gained when we are considering how to reform Governments. There has been a lot of speculation in our own constitution, which has grown out of our the debate about the Government’s motives for what distinctive political and constitutional tradition, in they have done. I do not want to enter into that, looking over the way to see how such matters are because I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord organised in other countries. I do not think that when Falconer, that what this House should do is decide on de Tocqueville engaged in such an exercise he was principle what is better for the country. On that issue, I intellectually desperate; it was quite a fruitful exercise. come down in favour of the view expressed by my It is worth noting that there is no advanced country noble friend Lord Armstrong at Second Reading. I do with which we can sensibly be compared that fixes the so for a reason which I am sure will be dismissed as terms of its Parliament for as long a period as five a Sir Humphrey-esque argument, as a bureaucrat’s years. France has a fixed term of five years, but it has argument, but I am not ashamed of that. Those of us presidential government; Italy has a fixed term of five who have seen government from the inside—the noble years, but Italy is a byword for governmental instability; Lord, Lord Dobbs, made this point, rather unexpectedly Malta and Luxembourg have fixed five-year terms, from my point of view, but from a political perspective— but we cannot sensibly compare ourselves to them. I have reason to put to the House that too frequent do not think that there is an advanced democracy elections are not good for the government of the abroad which sets the term of its Parliament at five country. Terrible things are done in the lead up to a years which should encourage us. If we look inwards general election. Decisions are put off or are made in at our own affairs, we should remind ourselves that the budgets which are designed to attract voters and are terms of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly not in the interests of the country. For example, it will and the Northern Ireland Assembly are set at four be in your Lordships’ memory that the Personal Care years. It is therefore incumbent upon the Government at Home Bill, which was introduced by the previous to explain why they have taken such an eccentric view. Government before the general election, was a blatant It is all the more so because setting the term at five piece of electioneering. I made the point then that, years, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Marks in the economic conditions of the country, it was of Henley-on-Thames, said, seems to be at odds with irresponsible to the highest degree. So to have elections the principles that the Liberal Democrats have professed. more often than we need to have is not in the best If we fix the term of Parliament, for whatever interests of government. duration, we insulate Members of Parliament and, Some people may say that I am against democracy, significantly, Ministers from public opinion. The longer but that would be unfair. Of course there have to be the term, the worse that effect; the shorter the term, elections. However, if there is a choice between every the more accountability and democratic engagement four years or five years, I would argue in favour of a are brought into play. In the light of all the professions five-year term. that the Deputy Prime Minister has made about the whole thrust of the constitutional reforms being brought Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Can the noble Lord comment forward by the coalition Government being to improve on the point that all the experts who gave evidence, accountability and democratic engagement, it seems both in the House of Lords committee and in the very odd that they should have decided on five years House of Commons, came down in favour of four rather than four. It was Mr Mark Harper, the years? These were experts on our constitution, both in Parliamentary Under-Secretary, when he was giving law and in practice. evidence to your Lordships Select Committee on the Constitution, who used the phrase, “it is an issue of judgment”. It should not perhaps surprise us very Lord Butler of Brockwell: I should like to comment much that the judgment that the Government took on that because the experts were, for the most part, was that which best suited the political interest of the either politicians or distinguished academics; they were coalition parties. I hope that the noble and learned not people who had seen government from the inside. Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will be able to That is why I am anxious to express this alternative persuade us that the Government have some better point of view. reason. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, a number of the Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I decided to politicians had been Ministers. Does the noble Lord intervene briefly in this debate because I felt that the regard that as government from the inside—or were arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Armstrong they kept from the inside by Sir Humphrey on a at Second Reading had not been given voice and regular basis? Secondly, on the basis of the argument 503 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 504 he has made, if the noble Lord was given a choice the other place where, it is worth noting, amendments between five and six years, I assume he would choose similar to those tabled by the noble and learned Lord six years because there would be even less wearisome were debated and rejected. elections then. On the debates in the other place, I should indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Wills—who, at one point, Lord Butler of Brockwell: The noble and learned suggested that the business managers were ramming Lord tempts me. the Bill through—that the Bill was introduced on 22 July 2010; it had its Second Reading in the other Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Please be tempted. place on 13 September; it had two and a half days in Committee in November and December; Report and Third Reading were on 18 January; and it was introduced Lord Butler of Brockwell: A balance has to be into this House on 19 January. We are now on the struck and I would strike it at five years. second day in Committee on 21 March and, with the On the previous day in Committee, the noble Lord, best will in the world, we would be unlikely to reach Lord Grocott, urged a referendum on the question of Third Reading of the Bill before the Easter Recess. the day of the week that polling should take place. In That does not sound like ramming a Bill through. I his speech today, he did not urge a referendum on shall come later to the point the noble Lord made going to a four-year term, which is a greater constitutional about the partisan nature of the Bill, which I strongly change than a change in the day of the week for reject. voting. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, suggested that I had indicated that the issue of four or five years Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is precisely the same was one of high principle, and I am grateful to the issue. This is about whether the election should be noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for every four years or five years—I am happy to accept quoting what I did say. I indicated that I did not that there may be failings in the wording of the believe there was a right or wrong answer. I think that amendment—but the principle is exactly the same: it is there is a matter of important principle in terms of a to enable the electorate to choose between whether the general constitutional reform package. I have always term of a Parliament should be five years or four strongly believed in the argument for a fixed-term years. Parliament, and I thought that the Labour Party supported that argument as well at the last general Lord Butler of Brockwell: I take it that, if the election. amendment is passed, the noble Lord would also want The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, went a referendum on the question of whether a fixed-term on to say that he considered this a matter of high Parliament should be for four or five years. principle, although many of us are waiting to hear exactly what that principle is. I did not discern it in any Lord Grocott: Yes. of his remarks. He put forward arguments on the basis of practicality and why he felt four years was better Lord Butler of Brockwell: Thank you. That makes than five. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of my point. It has been argued that the merit of a Berwick, cited a number of academics and politicians four-year term is that it gives the electorate more who had given evidence to that effect as well. However, ability to hold the Government to account because my noble friend Lord Rennard quite properly pointed they can do so more frequently. People like us and out that the legislation on candidate expenses which experts on government argue about what is good for the noble Lord, Lord Wills, took through the other the people and what the people want. If this was put place under the previous Government—which, I assume, to a referendum, I doubt whether there would be the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was responsible for in this popular support for four-year rather than five-year House—presumed that there would be a five-year terms. Elections are not very popular in this country; Parliament. Indeed, that legislation would have been people do not like having their television dominated otiose if there was a four-year Parliament. No doubt by politics for five or six weeks at a time. One of the we could amend that legislation but it is an insight to arguments in favour of a four-year term is that we are what the Labour Party was thinking at the time. giving the public what we think they ought to want, Therefore, to elevate this to a matter of high principle but I doubt they want it themselves. is overegging the cake. However, it is a matter of principle that the 6.15 pm constitutional reform that the Government are working The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace hard to achieve should have a framework for strong of Tankerness): My Lords, I thank the noble and and stable government that can deliver results to the learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for introducing electorate. This Bill and a fixed five-year term would the amendment. It has given rise to considerable debate help to ensure that. in all parts of the House and a number of important Perhaps I can now address some of the issues and and interesting arguments have been put for and against. explain why a five-year term would be beneficial. The The duration of the parliamentary term proposed in current constitutional position is that any Government the Bill has been discussed not only at Second Reading who retain the confidence of the other House may, if but in some of the earlier amendments we debated on they wish, stay in office for a full five-year term. We the first day in Committee. It has also been debated in should not kid ourselves that curtailing the length of 505 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 506

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] cannot get away from the fact that that is what they time would be a significant change beyond simply the were trying to do. My noble friend Lord Dobbs made important change to fixed terms. On the point raised it clear from his inside track that that is precisely what by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the Bill made Prime Ministers try to do in those circumstances. provision for five years and two months, that would be At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong the case only if an order was brought forward in of Ilminster, said—although I accept that he indicated unusual circumstances—for example, if there was an his objection to fixed-term Parliaments as a whole—that outbreak of foot and mouth—and it would require there are merits, if you are having fixed-term Parliaments, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament to be to a term of five rather than four years. The noble implemented. Amendments will be introduced later—this Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, made the same point evening, I hope—which will require the Prime Minister today. I remind the House what the noble Lord, Lord to give an explanation to both Houses as to why he or Armstrong, said: she was doing this. In fact, a Parliament need not be “If legislation were to set a fixed term of, let us say, four years, dissolved until five years after it is called but it is that period would be reduced to more like three years. That would certainly possible under our existing constitutional not leave enough room for sensible policy-making and good arrangements to go beyond the five years. Under the parliamentary debate before the imminence of the forthcoming Bill, unless there is the exceptional circumstance to election began to cast its distorting shadow. So I hope that, if this which I referred, it would not be possible to go beyond Bill becomes law, the fixed term will be five years, as is proposed five years. I understand the noble Lord’s concern but in the Bill, and not some shorter term”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 971.] hope that he, on listening to the later debate when this comes up, will be reassured on that point. That echoes the point made by Mr Asquith about what would practicably be the working life of the I take the stricture of my noble friend Lord Dobbs Parliament. Many commentators—politicians and the about the dangers of trading figures. It is the case that public—would argue that Governments can be too most Parliaments since the Second World War, some short term in their planning and decision-making, a 10 out of 17, have lasted at least four years. Three of point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. Many the last five have lasted almost five years. Some have major decisions and investments often take a significant pointed to examples of Parliaments that have lasted time for their consequences to appear. We want—I closer to four rather than five, making the argument hope there is a consensus in the country that people that four is somehow the norm and five is only for also want—to encourage future Governments to take Governments who are clinging on to power. Yet, as that longer-term view rather than always to be looking was well put by my noble friend Lord Marks, those for the short-term advantage, be that from being able who point to the examples where the fifth year has to pick the date of the election or shortening the been, if one wished to use the term, a lame duck length of the Parliament. almost make the point. These arose because the Prime Minister of the day looked at the runes, did the calculation and estimated that it would not be worth Lord Wills: The noble and learned Lord said earlier going to the electorate because he was probably not that he was not quite sure what the high principles going to win. The very nature of the Government were that are at stake here. He has just set out one of being in that position means that they are almost them—the interest of stability and good government. inevitably limping into their fifth year. That is a different The noble Lord, Lord Butler, also made the case for situation from Governments knowing that there is a this. Against that has to be traded the principle of five-year fixed term and having to plan accordingly. accountability, which has informed a lot of the remarks The noble and learned Lord also mentioned what on this side of the House. The noble and learned Lord Mr Asquith said back in February 1911. We could has just referred to what the British public might want. have a legitimate debate on what Mr Asquith was The noble Lord, Lord Butler, also referred to this. actually saying. He is quoted in the Official Report as Why precisely have the Government taken so few steps saying that reducing the Parliament from seven years, to consult the British public on this? There is no Green as it previously was, to five would, Paper or White Paper as far as I am aware, and no going out to the country to ask the British people how “probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working they think these respective principles of accountability term of four years”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/1911; col. 1749.] and stability should be weighed in the Bill. Why have the Government not done this? He clearly did not say that the term would be for four years but that the practical legislative working term would be for four years. That is an important point Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I take seriously the and one I will pick up later in light of the comments issue that somehow democratic accountability is being made at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord reduced. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made the Armstrong of Ilminster. As I said, the fact that an point in speaking to his amendment on the first day of election is called before the end of the fifth year of a Committee—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer term has often been cited as the Prime Minister of the of Thoroton, also expressed this view—that if we had day seeking to give his or her party a political advantage. had fixed-term, five-year Parliaments there would have The noble Lord, Lord Martin, gave examples where a been a reduced number of elections. I cannot accept Prime Minister has exercised that power and it has not that that automatically follows. Taking up the point of come off. It is fair to say that those Prime Ministers democratic accountability, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, were mightily surprised and upset by that. They could cannot ignore the possibility—or, more, the probability— not have foreseen it: it was their wrong judgment. That that there would have been Parliaments that did not 507 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 508 run their full term of five years. Perhaps February Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Well, he can be accused, 1974 would have been an example, or October 1974, or because noble Lords opposite will accuse him. But any the 1951 election. reasonable person would see that, in setting the basis My noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames for a fixed-term Parliament, one could not take account also indicated that it is important to put the ducks—as five years out of the possible political vicissitudes, they were described by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—in waves and currents in the intervening five years. If this perspective. It is almost inevitable that during the past Bill becomes law, the Prime Minister will be locked in, 65 years some Parliaments would not run their full as will any other Prime Minister in future. course. You cannot say that every Parliament would I was going to make this point later, but this is an automatically run the five years. Indeed, that is why we opportune time to make it. I thought that a large part have the provisions in Clause 2 of the Bill. of the noble and learned Lord’s argument was that this measure is the glue that holds the coalition together. However, unless I am mistaken—and I stand to be Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top: The Minister seems corrected if I am—the terms of his amendment would to be making some of the points that I know colleagues still leave standing the election to take place on 7 May have been anxious about. Governments and Parliament 2015. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head. have to respond to what is going on in the outside world and with the electorate, so it is difficult to be absolutely precise in legislation as to when things Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I want to correct that, should happen and be rigid about that. That is the because it is certainly not my intention, which is to objection of many people to the Bill. In a constitution have four years, four years, four years and so on. It is which has evolved and which develops, the Government certainly not to have five years and then four years. are trying to bring absolute certainty, when democracy There may be an issue with the drafting, but this is does not bring certainty and should not be expected intended to set four years as the term, so be under no to. That is why we are having such interesting times in illusion. the Middle East at the moment. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am grateful for that Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Baroness’s clarification because I had interpreted his amendment final point is a huge leap. As I explained at Second as leaving 7 May 2015 to stand and that thereafter Reading—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of there would be four years. I am grateful to hear the Paddington—there is a spectrum between the complete noble and learned Lord say that that was not the flexibility that you have under the present system, intention, because that was going to be the answer that which is subject to a maximum term, and the system I gave to my noble friend Lord Cormack. I accept that in, I think, Norway, where there are quite rigid terms it may well be an error in the drafting. in which there is no way out if anything happens. The point that I would make is that this Parliament There was a consensus that if we moved to fixed-term was elected for a maximum of five years, so in moving Parliaments, as I believe is right and as is proposed by to a fixed-term Parliament regime we are embodying the Bill, there should nevertheless be a mechanism to that in the Bill—and then thereafter also to have five call an early election if certain circumstances arose. years. That is the point that I make to the noble Lord, There was some degree of consensus on that. When Lord Butler. Of course it is right and it goes without we come to Clause 2, we will debate those mechanisms. saying that no Parliament can bind its successor. The I merely observe that the Constitution Committee noble Lord and others say that there is no need for this thought that the mechanisms were fit for purpose in legislation, but what we are seeking to do is to have terms of what we are dealing with. fixed-term Parliaments on into the future. Other Parliaments can repeal that, but obviously it would take primary legislation to repeal a system of fixed-term Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We have heard in Parliaments. I would very much hope that, having this debate references to all former Prime Ministers established the principle of fixed-term Parliaments, in using their judgment in their own party-political interests the same way as we have fixed terms for devolved and that of their own futures. How do I explain to Assemblies, for local government and for the European people outside that the present Prime Minister and Parliament, fixed terms would become the norm. Deputy Prime Minister, arriving on the figure of five years, were not doing the same thing? I take the point made by my noble friends Lord Marks and Lord Rennard with regard to pre-legislative scrutiny. I have been at the receiving end of many 6.30 pm complaints about the lack of such scrutiny. There is an Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I think that issue about the first year of a Government, because one can readily do so, because five years was what this when they come into office they want to get on and Parliament was elected for. If this legislation gets start dealing with things. One can readily imagine the through, the Prime Minister will not be able to substitute criticism that would come from the Opposition if a another date or another judgment, unless there are Government were not doing anything. However, there other issues. He has put that date so far away that he has been a move over the years to having more pre- cannot be accused of using it— legislative scrutiny, which has the effect of increasing the workload on both Houses. It is not fanciful to imagine that, following the election in 2015, a Government Noble Lords: Oh! of whatever colour will not be able to commence their 509 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 510

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords— first Session of legislation with more substantive Bills until there has been a considerable amount of pre- Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Lord was legislative scrutiny. So we are talking about the beginning not in the Chamber for the whole debate. He knows of 2016 as the time when some key pieces of legislation that I normally give way. Perhaps I can just— are introduced, having properly been looked at beforehand. The final year, whether the term is four years or five Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The Minister is having years, is always going to be one when those seeking difficulty finding his place. I am only trying to help re-election look to their constituencies. That would him. reduce by some way the effective time for legislation by a Government. My noble friend Lord Norton made the point in one of our debates on the first day Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Lord is in Committee that Governments might run out of always trying to help. I cannot remember who it was in steam in the fifth year. Allowing for pre-legislative the last debate—it may have been my noble friend scrutiny and knowing that there will be five years Lord Brooke—who said that one should always beware allows for the legislative programme to be planned of the help that comes from certain quarters. more effectively. The fifth year, particularly if it is a One treats with caution foreign comparisons because, full year, not one starting at the end of November with as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, there are a wash-up in the middle of March, would then be used different circumstances. However, noble Lords mentioned much more effectively. the fact that there are fixed terms of four years in the I defer to the huge experience of the noble Lord, United States. I happened to note, reading a copy of Lord Martin, as he was Speaker of the other place and the Economist from earlier this month, some comment has an understanding of the parliamentary process. that for the Republican Party people have not yet been However, the final year, be it the fifth or the fourth year, clearly identified as taking part in the primaries. That would inevitably be one when the shadow of the coming is just two years and two months since the inauguration election loomed. I also point out that my understanding of President Obama. It is in order for a Government is—although I may be corrected—that now Thursday who receive a mandate to be able to fulfil their programme debates in the other place are very often chosen by a over a planned period and I believe that five years is Back-Bench Committee and that the Government have more likely to assist that than four years. given power to the Back-Bench Committee to determine the subject matter for debate. I would be interested to Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: That was not very know how many Divisions there have been on Thursdays convincing. in the first Session of a Parliament, as the noble Lord made the point about how few there were in the fifth Session. That is another measure that this Government Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble Lord, Lord have taken to put more power in the hands of Parliament Foulkes, will get an opportunity in future to intervene. rather than the Executive. I am sure that he will make a speech on another set of amendments, to which I shall be more than happy to reply. Lord Martin of Springburn: I cannot speak for what is going on in the other place at the moment. However, At the moment, we have a system that allows up to if my memory serves me correctly, the Minister followed a maximum of five years. In fact, three of the past five Jo Grimond into the House of Commons in 1983, so Parliaments have gone for five years. To remove that he will appreciate as a former Scottish Member that possibility requires a more compelling argument than on a Thursday there were votes more often than not, we have heard. To move for four years would leave the because we had to take the sleeper home. The other effective working life of a Parliament and a Government thing is that the Minister has had more experience of sufficiently curtailed that they would not be able to four-year Parliaments than five-year ones. In the last implement their manifesto provisions. Therefore, I ask Session of a five-year Parliament, there were no votes the House to support the idea of a five-year fixed term whatever on the Floor of the House of Commons on a and ask the noble and learned Lord in those circumstances Thursday. That is what happened in the last Session of to withdraw his amendment. Parliament before the general election—there were no votes at all. The Minister has never had the experience Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I will of of when that was the case. course withdraw my amendment at the end of the debate because the purpose of debate at this stage was Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I agree that it was in order to probe and examine the arguments. The never my experience. One thing that I am glad that I noble and learned Lord’s speech was well delivered but do not have responsibility for is how Parliament under disappointing because it ultimately did not address the the last Government was arranged in its final year. central argument being put against him: that the effect The point that I was making was that I believe that, be is to change our constitution, where there is a five-year the term four or five years, the final year will be taken maximum but the norm is around four years, to one forward under the looming election. If one goes to where the norm becomes five years save in exceptional four years and one has pre-legislative scrutiny, that circumstances. cuts down the effective time for the Government to What everyone around the House was asking him introduce their measures, let alone for their measures was: why are you making this change if we have to to be judged. make the judgment on what is in the best interests of 511 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 512 good governance in this country? The Minister never all on the accountability side. That is what makes the answered that question at all but it is at the heart of case being advanced so absurd. Again, in the evidence the debate. This is not a party-political point. The that the Deputy Prime Minister gave to the examination reason that the noble and learned Lord cannot answer of the Bill, he said in justifying it that, the question is that good old Mr Laws, in order to “it is an unambiguous judgment on our part that reducing the make it clear that the record should not be perverted power of the executive, seeking to boost the power of the legislature, in any way, has explained why it is five years. I do not making the legislatures more accountable to people ... collectively know why the noble and learned Lord, who is an introduces the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater honourable man, is weaving and dodging on this. Just control over politicians” say, “They wouldn’t do a deal with us unless we agreed How could he have been trying to justify the Bill as five years”. Do not try and make it something that it is giving more accountability in a process that left the not. electorate with less ability to get rid of Governments, One of the other things that emerged so strongly because there would be fewer general elections? What from this very powerful debate was the sense that the is so odd about the Government’s position is that they more one talked about it, the more this House felt rely upon accountability and then propose something uneasy about being locked into this straitjacket that that produces less of it. the Bill brings. I am in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, in the sense that I can see it to be appropriate that 6.45 pm Parliament should in some way endorse what the We heard a number of very impressive speeches. Prime Minister has decided about an election. However, I particularly mention the speech that the noble and the Government are saying, “You have to choose learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, made. He went between five years and four years”. I detected a real through the evidence and, with respect to everyone sense of unease around the House on this, but the else, demolished the case in favour of a norm of five Government are putting it that we have got to make years. By my calculations there were five speeches, this choice. Therefore, looking at the arguments, let us apart from that of the Minister, in favour of five years. see which the best choice is. The noble and learned I include in them that of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, Lord himself said what the reason is that the Government who I detected was in fact in favour of four years but are doing this. said it should be five years for the first term. I respectfully Now, I cannot find my note. That would give my suggest that we should not listen to his extremely well noble friend Lord Foulkes an opportunity to ask me a put siren song. To paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord question, but I do not think that he wants to ask me Cormack, he was saying that we will just have to any questions. I am sorry about that. succumb to this awful argument that is being advanced. He is not nodding but I feel a sense coming across the Room on that. Do not be persuaded by that argument; Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My noble and learned if five years is wrong for the future, it is certainly friend is aware that I have just spent the last year of a wrong for the present. four-year term in the Scottish Parliament. We happen The noble Lord, Lord Marks, described it as a to have been legislating right up to the very last day of point of principle. I remind noble Lords that the point that Parliament. There has been none of the kind of he referred to was not on whether we should have lassitude, or the feeling that the noble and learned fixed terms but on whether they should be of five Lord, Lord Wallace, described as an end-of-term—what years. To quote David Laws again, he says that Andrew word I am I looking for? Stunell, “mentioned that our own policy was for four-year… Parliaments. Lord Howarth of Newport: Fatigue. … Osborne made the point that five-year parliaments were better … We made no objection to this”— Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: There has been none of a point of principle lost in a second. What will their that fatigue in that Parliament, which has been legislating point of principle be tomorrow on it? I would not rely right up to the wire, and no lame dog— heavily on it.

Noble Lords: Lame duck! Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: Is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, not prepared to concede that it may just be that, in spite of the frivolous tones Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Yes, I mean lame duck; in which he dismisses the arguments, my right honourable I knew I would get it eventually. I can tell my noble friend Mr Osborne may just have been right? and learned friend Lord Falconer that one of the architects of the four-year fixed-term Parliament in Scotland was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace Lord Falconer of Thoroton: He might have been, of Tankerness. but I would not rely on anybody whose point of principle—this one was adopted for years by the Liberal Democrats—evaporates in the course of one sentence Lord Falconer of Thoroton: How grateful I am for in a negotiation. Say that it is a compromise or a deal all that. I know that the Minister will have listened to done to benefit the country, but do not say that it is a it all. point of principle which switched in the course of To go back to my point, the noble and learned Lord negotiations. That is the weakness of the argument, in is making us choose between five and four years, but my respectful submission, that the noble Lord, Lord the arguments that his Government put forward are Marks of Henley-on-Thames, was making. 513 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 514

[LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON] The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, made an impressive Amendment 14 speech. I have never heard statistics more blatantly abused than by him. Perhaps I might draw attention to Moved by Lord Howarth of Newport two particular points. First, he chose his starting point 14: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert “except if an early as October 1974 to ignore the February to October parliamentary general election has occurred under section 2” 1974 point, as he explained. Secondly, the difficulty with the fact that there was one election where the date was forced upon the Prime Minister by a Motion of Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, the effect of no confidence was simply obliterated from his mind my amendment would be to remove the provision for completely, so that he focused only on 1978. What he “resetting the clock”, as the phrase goes. If the amendment said was accurate in that, obviously, in choosing the were incorporated into the Bill, and were there to be date that they have for elections Prime Ministers are an early general election under either of the two motivated by the chances of winning. That is the basic provisions in Clause 2, that early general election reason why one has a fixed-term Parliament but it would not be followed by a new full fixed term of the does not really assist in determining between four and subsequent Parliament. Only the balance of the term five years. left over from the previous Parliament would be served by the new Parliament, and a general election would The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of take place at the end of five years—or, if at Report we Brockwell, was the most admirable. I say that genuinely, adopt a four-year fixed term, at the end of four having worked with him. He was the Cabinet Secretary years—as established before the early general election in 1997 when we took power and, having seen the took place. talent of the noble Lord, I can genuinely understand how he would find the elected politicians quite wearisome The provision for resetting the clock is an important to start with, particularly when they come into power element in the Bill and we should have the opportunity with no experience of any sort of government. If I to think about it in Committee. I understand that in were him, I would have the least often elections as Sweden, if an early general election is called, the possible but, as people have made the point, this electoral cycle none the less remains unaltered; they debate is just as much about accountability as about have the provision that I am proposing in the Bill. Of stable government. The reason that the Bill is being course, Parliament legislated that there should be four-year brought forward—this is the Government’s defence—is fixed terms for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh because the public are fed up with the politicians and Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. That want more accountability and more mechanisms to legislation provides for the possibility of an exceptional have control over them. The idea that you do that by early election but does not provide that the clock is extending the length of a Parliament, which is the reset in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and one effect of this, seems, with the greatest respect, to be might say that sauce for the goose should be sauce for nonsense. Nothing could be better designed to reduce the gander. confidence in government than the disingenuous If we are to have fixed-term Parliaments, why do we explanations that have been put forward for the Fixed-term not have genuine fixed terms? That would enable the Parliaments Bill in the course of this debate. I will benefit of the discipline of fixed terms to be fully withdraw my amendment, but it will be back. I beg experienced and everyone would know where they leave to withdraw the amendment. stood. It would remove the incentive for a Government to contrive an early general election by, for example, engineering a vote of no confidence in themselves. The Lord Butler of Brockwell: Before the noble and requirement would be less significant if in due course learned Lord sits down, since he had a go at me, can he the House approves one of the amendments that provides quote one piece of evidence that the public generally that only the Leader of the Opposition may table a want four-year elections? Motion of no confidence, but without that amendment we must recognise that there is a possibility, and it could Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Can the noble Lord quote be an attractive one, for the Government to engineer one bit of evidence in favour of five years? I suspect such a Motion in order to achieve an early general that the public have no view on whether it should be election. It would discourage the parties from colluding four years or five; it is for us to judge. to take advantage of the two-thirds provision for an early general election, and would lead to the benefits of Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I shall answer on the noble full five-year terms being more surely secured, as no and learned Lord’s behalf. The evidence given to the doubt the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster Power commission was clearly in favour of more elections and Lord Butler of Brockwell, would wish. It would rather than fewer, not more than four years apart. keep the rhythm of the boundary reviews in sync with the electoral cycle, the importance of which the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, stressed in our previous debate. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness When Mr Harper, the Minister, gave evidence to Pitkeathley): My Lords, I remind you that the amendment your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, he was rather is being withdrawn. equivocal on this point—he simply said that it was a judgment issue whether or not the provision for resetting Amendment 11 withdrawn. the clock should be built into the legislation. He said, “on balance we have taken the view that resetting the clock is the Amendments 12 and 13 not moved. right one”— 515 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 516 that is, the right decision. Once again, as with the issue is much more akin to what is proposed in the Bill. It is of judgment as to whether the fixed term should be for also the case that, given the proportional systems that four years or five, the coalition’s judgments just happen are in place for elections to the Scottish Parliament to favour its own interests in staying in office. Again, I and the Welsh Assembly, it is unlikely that you are ask the Minister whether the Government have any going to get a Government elected with a large single-party better reason for having incorporated the provision for mandate. If a party had not been elected with such a resetting the clock in the event of an exceptional early mandate, people would not think it so odd that it did general election. not have a full term. We gave consideration to this matter, but the balance Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I thank the comes down in favour of resetting the clock. I am noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for the amendment. I was grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment. It has initially puzzled about its effect, which would be that it been an opportunity for us to air this important aspect would provide that the next scheduled election was of the Bill. I hope that he will agree that there is merit not held following an early general election under in resetting the clock and, on that basis, will withdraw Clause 2. This gives me an opportunity to say something his amendment. about subsections (3) and (4), as he has indicated that with this amendment he is seeking to ensure that the Lord Howarth of Newport: I am grateful to the clock is not reset. His closing remarks indicated that Minister for explaining the Government’s case slightly this is a matter not of high principle but of judgment. more fully than the debate at Second Reading gave Subsections (3) and (4) of the clause provide that, him the opportunity to do. After all the excitement of where an early election occurs, the polling date for the the previous debate, the House has not been particularly next election will be the first Thursday in May in the zestful about embarking on an exhaustive debate on fifth year of Parliament, unless the early election falls this topic, but this provision in the Bill is significant on a date before the first Thursday in May, in which and it is right that the House has received the explanation case the length of the ensuing Parliament will be that the Minister has given. calculated as four years from the next first Thursday in If my amendments were incorporated, however, May. That will deliver certainty as to when the next they would provide greater certainty. The Minister election will be, but—this is a crucial point—it also seemed to suggest that there would be greater certainty gives the incoming Government as close to a five-year if we had a resetting of the clock. There would be term as possible. It eliminates the need for the electorate greater certainty about the duration of a Parliament if to return to the polls in quick succession, as the clock we did not have that provision, but I do not want to is effectively reset. quibble. I also accept his point about proportional The Constitution Committee examined this aspect representation making a difference. I am grateful to of the Bill. In its report it concluded that if there is an him for correcting my appreciation of the position in early general election, a Government elected at that Northern Ireland. poll should have a full term, or as near a full term as I agree that, on balance, it is better to include the possible, in which to develop their policies and take provision to reset the clock. One could make a reasonable their legislative programme through Parliament. case for not including that provision, or for not applying Some noble Lords may nevertheless have the concerns it, if the early general election were to occur in the first expressed by the noble Lord about the term of the half of a fixed term of Parliament. It might be accepted Parliament after an early election. I know that some that, if there was more than half of the fixed term still consider that it would be preferable for an early election to go, it would be sufficient and the benefits of not to affect the date of the ordinarily scheduled discouraging early elections would be felt. However, I election, but that could well mean that a Parliament certainly agree that if there were an early general was given only a relatively short period of time. It may election later in the Parliament, it would not make be that a Government would be elected with a substantial sense not to start a new fixed term. If we were to elect majority, and it would be difficult to explain to an a new Government, they would need a decent span of electorate in these circumstances why it would be time in which to govern. I also do not think that the necessary to return so quickly when it might appear need to have two general elections in rapid succession that a Government had been elected relatively recently would be well received by voters if this was the only with a mandate. They might be surprised and somewhat reason why there had to be another election. I am glad confused by that approach. that we have been able to look at this issue and beg Not to allow an incoming Government to serve a leave to withdraw the amendment. full term would lead to a system with potentially two types of Government: those entitled to a full term to Amendment 14 withdrawn. implement their policies, and those who would have to make do with the time left to them before the next scheduled election. That could also alter the nature of 7pm the elections themselves. Why should the mandate provided at one election be any different from the Amendment 14A mandate provided at another? I note the points made about the devolved Moved by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Administrations in both Scotland and Wales. There is 14A: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert “unless this date a difference; I think that the Northern Ireland Assembly coincides with an election to a reformed House of Lords” 517 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 518

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, this voters. The new elected House might then almost make amendment would mean that an election to the other things ungovernable if it felt that it had to restrain place could not take place on the same day as an the Commons from action that the electorate had election to this House. The Political and Constitutional demonstrated would displease it. Reform Committee in the other place suggested that These are exactly the sort of questions that will in the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill should be discussed due course be debated with regard to the plans for this with the draft Bill on reforming the House of Lords so Chamber. However, it seems odd that we will entrench that the two fundamental constitutional issues could the date for the elections to one part of Parliament be considered alongside each other. Indeed, that somewhat without any reference to elections to the other part. wise committee noted: Perhaps, therefore, at the very least, the Minister will “Elections to a reformed House of Lords may well prove a simply clarify whether the first tranche of the elections further complicating element”. to this place is also envisaged for 7 May 2015, and the Let us pause for a moment to see what considerations next tranche for May 2020. If not, what are the ideas and complications might arise. There are two assumptions. about the harmony of the two Chambers, given the The first is that the elections to the other place and to provisions of the Bill? I beg to move. your Lordships’ reformed House would take place on the same day. If that is the correct assumption, I Lord Cormack: My Lords, the noble Baroness has assume that the elections to this House would also be done us a real favour in introducing her amendment. for the same five-year fixed term—if that, rather than It is a mischievous one, as she knows, but she has brought a term of four years, is accepted. One has to assume before us a subject that may come again. Personally, I that the term would be shortened should an election hope it does not. As one who believes strongly in the be triggered in the other House. In the mean time, virtue and value of a non-elected second Chamber, I what should happen? Will Members of this House be hope that this Chamber will not be abolished and able to resign, for example, to fight a seat in the replaced by another. The noble Baroness has indicated Commons? Maybe they will be able to resign from this the sort of things that could happen if there were two House, having been elected here, for any other reasons elected Chambers. There is the challenge over which is via—presumably—the equivalent of the Chiltern the more legitimate, and the challenge as to whether Hundreds. If so, what if the following by-elections to you can possibly—even though you may wish to—retain this House changed the composition of this House so the supremacy of the other place if a second Chamber that the Government in the Commons could no longer here is elected. Many of us believe that you cannot. get their programme through this House but were Many of us believe that it is far simpler, better and less unable to call an election in the other place because ambiguous to have one mandate held by one House, that is not allowed for in this Bill? rather than a mandate divided between two. The second assumption is that elections to the two It will be interesting to see whether my noble and Houses would take place on different days. It is interesting learned friend the Minister can give us some of the then to ask the question: for how long would Members answers that the noble Baroness sought. He ought to elected to this House sit and would that be for a fixed reflect, as should others in government, on the wise term, regardless of what elections were to take place in words of Ernest Bevin, one of the greatest Foreign the other place? What will be the gap between the Secretaries that our country has had in the past century. general elections in which people are elected to the two Talking of some political problem, he said: Houses? On the assumption that they are held on “If you open that Pandora’s box, you never know what Trojan different days, halfway through a Commons parliamentary horses will jump out”. term your Lordships’ House could change hands so I urge the wisdom of those words on my noble and that there was stalemate, but with the upper House learned friend before he replies. perhaps claiming the legitimacy of a fresh mandate and—if elected by proportional representation—a more Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree with the noble representative mandate. If this House claimed a fresh Lord, Lord Cormack: we are grateful to my noble mandate in light of current affairs, where would that friend Lady Hayter for raising these issues. It is important leave the Commons—unable to challenge it or to to emphasise that the Government have put forward refresh itself by virtue of a new election and mandate? these proposals for constitutional reform so that Could the equivalent of a no-confidence vote in this they are all part of a package. The three parts of the House then trigger a response in the other House, to package are the Parliamentary Voting System and enable it to call an election? Constituencies Bill, the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill It is worth recalling that our Select Committee on and the House of Lords Reform Bill. It is important the Constitution noted that, in regard to the triggering for the noble and learned Lord to give at least some of an early general election for the Commons, the Bill answers to what my noble friend Lady Hayter has should contain a form of safety valve in case the said, but there is a more important underlying point. Government lost, At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, “the confidence of the Commons or where a political or economic said to my noble friend Lord Rooker, “Oh, you can’t crisis … affected the country”. say that, because we voted for the Parliamentary Voting However, either of those, should they happen, might System and Constituencies Bill on the basis that it is a be felt most quickly in your Lordships’ House—should five-year fixed term”. I very much hope that we will an election here come swiftly after, or even during, not hear any more of that sort of talk from the such a crisis—and change its composition so that this Government, because they were given the opportunity House felt it more truly reflected the current views of to put the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill together— 519 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 520

Lord Rennard: My Lords— Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, we have gone down that path many times and have indicated Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not going to give that we intended this should be a first-term Bill. I have way, if you don’t mind. As I say, the Government were made it very clear on a number of occasions when this given the opportunity to put these things together but has been raised that we believed it was important that they did not take it. It seems to me that the consequence at a very early point in this Parliament we should of not taking that opportunity is that when Parliament establish that it would run to a particular fixed date, debates these issues again on the Fixed-term Parliaments and that we wanted to ensure the principle of fixed-term Bill or on Lords reform, we will not regard ourselves Parliaments. However, no one can say that there has as bound by the previous decisions that have been not been ample opportunity, in the length of time made—for example, we might conclude that four years which I described in responding to an earlier amendment, was better than five for a fixed-term Parliament—because for both Houses to have plenty of opportunity to look the Government explicitly refused the opportunity to at a relatively short Bill. put these constitutional reforms together despite the fact that they were urged to do so not just by the Opposition but by the cross-party constitutional Lord Cormack: My noble and learned friend talked committees in both Houses of Parliament. about the scrutiny committee of both Houses. Can he give an absolute assurance that on that committee I shall be interested to hear the noble and learned there will be Members who do not believe in a fully or Lord’s view on how we deal with possible inconsistencies partially elected House so that it can reflect the wide between one of the Government’s constitutional reform range of opinions in both Houses of Parliament? package Bills and another. Presumably, that is done by amending the later Bill when we see what the right answer is. I now give way to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I am in no way trying to dismiss the suggestion that my noble Lord Rennard: I wonder whether the noble and friend makes. I am not in a position to indicate how learned Lord is being consistent in his arguments. that committee will be established. No doubt there There seemed to be a lot of criticism of the fact that in will be nomination procedures from both Houses. I previous legislation two items were put together—the suspect that it would be rather odd if a contrary view voting referendum and the constituency boundaries. or two was not expressed on it, but I am not in a Now he is suggesting that the third item—this Bill—and position to indicate that ahead of the Bill being published. House of Lords reform should all be put in the same I assure the Committee that the timings of elections to package. I do not understand his argument. I was the reformed second Chamber has been considered simply suggesting that when we have decided things carefully by the Government and the proposals will be we should try to be consistent about them. in the draft Bill. I certainly take my noble friend’s point that, having Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As regards the AV spent most of the time on the Parliamentary Voting referendum and the parliamentary boundaries, we saw System and Constituencies Bill listening to the Opposition what was proposed in relation to both of those. The saying that the Bill should be split, it is somewhat issue was whether they both needed to be included in intriguing then to be told that not only should it be one Bill. We knew what the proposals were. split but that two other Bills should be added on to it. I do not think that the experience of the CRAG Bill in 7.15 pm the previous Parliament, where numerous constitutional Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I thank the principles were put together under the one heading of noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for this interesting a constitutional reform Bill, was necessarily the most amendment, which has given rise to a number of satisfactory experience. interesting questions. As the Committee well knows, a The noble Baroness mentioned entrenching the election cross-party committee has been considering reform of date for one House while the other was pending. At this House and the Government intend to publish a least it will be known when this Bill has got on to the draft Bill shortly. I could not possibly comment on statute book what Parliament has agreed with regard what will be in that draft Bill as it will be subject to to a fixed-term election. If this Bill had not come pre-legislative scrutiny. We hope that that will be done forward and we did not have fixed-term Parliaments, by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I am sure that an election to the other place could have happened at some of the important issues which the noble Baroness any time. The potential for some of the confusion and raised will be brought before that Joint Committee. concerns to which the noble Baroness referred would My noble friend the Leader of the House answered have been multiplied many times over if it was proposed questions on some of the issues she raised regarding that this House should have a fixed term while the the relative standing of both Houses last week, if not other place could have elections as and when the the week before. However, I do not think that it is Prime Minister of the day thought best to call them. appropriate to deal with them in the context of this Bill. Therefore, when the Joint Committee of both Houses considers the draft Bill, it will do so in the knowledge Lord Bach: The noble and learned Lord says that of what Parliament has passed in the context of fixed-term that draft Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Parliaments. This Bill deals with dates of the general That is great to hear, but why was that not the case election to the other place. These should be set before with this Bill? we consider the dates of elections to the reformed 521 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 522

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] programme to do that within a 12-month period. I second Chamber. There will be ample opportunity to remind the House of the current situation before I discuss elections to this Chamber when the Bill is explain why it is essential, when faced with this fixed-term published in draft form and, I suspect, plenty of Parliament, that we legislate to ensure that Sessions further opportunities to discuss it when the reality of are at least annual. the Bill comes before the other place and your Lordships’ At present, Governments normally decide around House. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the September each year—perhaps a little earlier—the amendment. date of the Queen’s Speech. I do not know the details of the negotiations between No. 10 and the palace, but Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: I thank the Minister I know, as the Committee knows, that we all understand and the other speakers for their contributions. The that normally there will be a Queen’s Speech in November Minister said that it was an interesting amendment, each year. Occasionally, it has drifted into December. rather like the Chinese proverb, “May you live in That is excepting the Queen’s Speeches that come after interesting times”. I am not sure about the noble Lord, general elections, which can come at any time—although Lord Cormack, calling it mischievous. It was seriously they cannot come at any time if the Bill becomes an meant because it is about a package of reforms, as my Act. We know that Governments work within a parameter, noble and learned friend said. I do not think that which is usually some time in November. There is the means putting them in one Bill but rather having a real usual argy-bargy whereby if a Queen’s Speech comes idea of where we are taking our constitution before we too early, it is because the Government do not have tackle any one bit of it, so that we see it in the round. enough legislation and are running out of steam; or if Nevertheless, given the comments that have been made, the Queen’s Speech comes too late it is because the I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Government have lost control of their legislative programme. However, the parameter means that there Amendment 14A withdrawn. is a discipline that gives a big advantage to the Opposition—because parliamentary time is valuable, as we know only too well—and the Government really Amendment 15 have to get their act together, manage their programme, and finish it within the 12-month period. To extend Moved by Lord Grocott unilaterally the normal length of a Session is an abuse 15: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert— and is certainly to the massive advantage of the “( ) Each five-year parliament shall include a minimum of five Government. parliamentary sessions.” I do not know whether I should say this in anger or in envy, because anyone involved in managing a Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am very conscious of the Government’s legislative programme every year has fact that we probably have only about 10 minutes the nightmare period of October and early November before we ought to break for dinner. These things fall when you are trying to fit a quart into a pint pot, you as they do, but I hope that I may be presumptuous know that you have to do it and that you have to enough to suggest that this is an important amendment. observe the conventional gaps between the stages of It is a simple one and says straightforwardly that if we Bills—or at least you used to have to observe them; are to go down the road of fixed-term Parliaments this Government do not have a good record on that over five years—I am opposed to that—there is a very aspect of our constitution. However, you know that strong case indeed for saying that there should be there is a discipline within which you have to work. annual Sessions of Parliament, and that it should not Moreover, both Houses—the Commons and the Lords— be within the remit of government, having fixed the have recognised this process as important. Both Houses Parliament, then to be allowed absolute flexibility have procedures to enable Bills to be carried over. We over the length of Sessions. have all been familiar with the debates that allow, in I perhaps would not have thought it necessary to exceptional circumstances, individual Bills to follow a put this amendment down and in effect legislate for recognised constitutional procedure—if I may put it the Session of a Parliament were it not for the very as grandly as that. Motions have to be passed and so bad experience of the current practice whereby, to my on. There is a recognition that either House of Parliament amazement, last September the Government announced can breach the annual sessional understanding only if that the first Session of this Parliament would last for the Government obey certain rules in relation to individual two years. So far as I know, this was done without any Bills and do not do that as regards their overall consultation, although the noble and learned Lord, programme. Lord Wallace, can correct me on that. That was an I do not know whether I should be angry or envious extraordinary unilateral decision to make. The only about the fact that the Government have unilaterally defences of it that I have heard are, “This is the first given us a two-year Session. I just wish that I had Session, so we have a lot to do”, or the rather feeble thought of it. When we were in government I wish that defence that it is only five months longer than the first I could have thought, “Blimey, I don’t need to worry Sessions of Parliament have often been in the past. about getting these Bills through in 12 months; let’s Speaking as a former Chief Whip, I can say only that just postpone the Queen’s Speech for another year or if you had said to me, “It is only five months”, five however long—whenever it is convenient to the months longer for a Session of Parliament for any Government to decide when the Queen’s Speech should Government is absolute gold dust. It is a discipline on take place”. Given that we have had all this hyperbole Governments who are putting in their legislative from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and 523 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 524 others—not very convincingly—about the Government Parliament. That weakens the power of Parliament. A or the Prime Minister giving away power regarding lot of the constitutional rhetoric of this Government fixed-term Parliaments, I hope that he will acknowledge, was on strengthening the power of Parliament. if he believes that argument, that they should give I wish to ask a specific question, because it would away the power of unilaterally being able to decide appear that the Government understood this position when a new Session of Parliament should begin. on 25 May 2010, when the Deputy Leader of the By having this two-year Session, the Government House of Commons said in relation to the Bill: have breached an important convention of both Houses. “There is a strong case for pre-legislative scrutiny, but I do not It is reasonable for those of us who are concerned want to extend the consideration of this legislation into the about this to say that we now need to enshrine the following Session, because that would not be appropriate”.—[Official proposal in my amendment in legislation. I cannot Report, Commons, 25/4/10; col. 152.] think of any good argument against, if you know He understood the importance of Sessions. He said when general elections are going to be, why you should that on 25 May 2010. Happily for him, on 13 September not also determine when the Sessions should be. I beg 2010, the Session was then extended until May 2012, to move. thereby getting rid of the one problem that stood in the way of pre-legislative scrutiny. Can the noble and Lord Cormack: My Lords, briefly, I agree with what learned Lord specifically answer as to why the Deputy the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said. I very much hope Leader of the House broke that promise? “Promise” that my noble and learned friend will be positive in may be overstating it. Perhaps the noble and learned response. There is nothing that we can do about this Lord should characterise what the Deputy Leader extended Session. It will last until May next year. I meant. Was it wild musing as to what might happen? regret that. Sessions should last as near as possible for Why did he not go ahead with what he had said? a year, and if we are to move to fixed-term Parliaments, the obvious thing is to have the state opening for each 7.30 pm Session in the May of each year. I hope that my noble and learned friend will give me some comfort when he Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I thank the responds. noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for his amendment, which would provide for a minimum of five parliamentary Lord McAvoy: My Lords, I rise briefly in support of Sessions in every five-year Parliament. I have a lot of the principle in my noble friend’s amendment, because sympathy with the spirit of what is proposed, but I will it would bring a discipline into what has happened explain why I do not think that it should be enshrined ever since this Government took power, which has in statute. I accept that having five annual Sessions in a been the continual tampering with the constitution for five-year Parliament makes considerable sense. Indeed, petty party-political advantage. That is a fact of life. under this Bill is it likely that the Parliament elected in I do not like to be provocative, but I am trying to find 2015 will have five Sessions. The only reason that this the words that would best describe this matter. I have Parliament is likely to have four—I will deal with this mulled over words such as “sleazy”, but if I continued, in more detail in a moment—is the transition to fixed my words would probably be unparliamentary, and I terms and spring state openings. It would not be would not wish to be responsible for any more damage appropriate to put the amendment into statute; the to the office furniture. However, as a former business current arrangements should remain. As the noble manager in the Commons, I consider that we are Lord, Lord Grocott, recognised, even if the Bill did dealing with a completely foolhardy approach to the not exist, it would still be possible to change the length constitution. We have conventions here, but ever since of a Session. the advent of this coalition, particularly for the party I will answer the point made by the noble and advantage of one of the partners in the coalition, the learned Lord, Lord Falconer. It was very obvious that majority party opposite is being driven along to stay the decision to move to spring 2012 was not taken in in power. Precedents are being set that are damaging the early days of this Government. By the time the to the conventions of this House, the other House and announcement was made in September, the Bill had the constitution. I appeal to Conservative Members of already been published. I cannot remember the exact the coalition, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, date; it must have been around the time the Bill got its whose comments are welcome, that it is past the time Second Reading. I am being told that in fact it was the that they should put a stop to the roughshod treatment same day. That might explain why the Bill did not have of the constitution. pre-legislative scrutiny. I know that I have not answered this point to the satisfaction of the Opposition, who Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I support will come back to it time and time again. However, we what my noble friend Lord McAvoy said; I support wished to have this Bill in the first term. It was not in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Grocott; and order to get this Bill through that we decided to extend I support the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord the Session. It is very clear that the reason for the Cormack. It is worrying when everyone who knows extension was that we wished to move to an annual anything about this says—and I do not include myself; Queen’s Speech in May and therefore an adjustment I refer to three distinguished ex-Members of the other was required. place—that the effect of there being no control over We could have reduced the length of this Session, the Government on how long a Session lasts means but to have done so half way through would have that they can play fast and loose with however long it caused a number of difficulties. That is why it was takes them to get the legislation that they want through decided, as a one-off, to extend this Session until 525 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 526

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] simply make the point that to truncate one Session spring 2012. There is nothing sinister in that. Most of into two or three months would not be sensible. Future our legislation would have been passed in any event. Sessions will last for only 12 months. What is happening The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, indicated that there is in this Session is a one-off adjustment so we can get provision for carry-over. I pause to reflect that the fact into the pattern of spring to spring Sessions that that this Session is longer may bring a ray of hope—with would fit the election timetable of fixed-term Parliaments reference to the previous debate, I believe that hope with elections in May. For these reasons, I invite the was the last thing to come out of Pandora’s box—to noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Members whose Private Members’ Bills are so often frustrated because there are not enough Fridays in the Session to get them through. To suggest that this is a Lord Grocott: My Lords, I do not know whether sinister plot on the part of the Executive is grossly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is getting misplaced. The purpose is to get into a position where tired or whether I am. He has ample reason for getting we can have annual Sessions that begin in May. It will tired because he has been heroic as the only Minister be our intention thereafter to have Sessions that run dealing with this vital constitutional Bill. However, I from spring to spring. simply did not understand what he said. We had a general election in May last year and he said that in It is not appropriate to enshrine this in statute order to adjust to the situation where we know the because there may be a case where, if the Bill is date of the next general election, which will be five enacted, an incumbent Government lost a vote of no years from last May, the length of this Session of confidence and a new Government was formed within Parliament had to be adjusted to accommodate that. 14 days. It is possible in such a scenario that it would I do not understand that argument. be felt that the Session should come to an end and that there should be a new Queen’s Speech. Nobody would think that that would be unreasonable in the circumstances. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am grateful to the It might be very difficult then to fit in five Sessions. noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to explain it. That is why it is better not to stipulate in statute that It was clear from the comments made by the Deputy there should be five Sessions in any one Parliament. A Leader of the other place in May of last year that the Session might begin after an election in February and decision to extend the Session to spring 2012 was not come to an end in May, which would not make much made in the early days. The working assumption was sense. It would have to be brought artificially to an that we would go forward as we normally do after an end to ensure that the requirement of five Sessions election in May and have the first Session running was met. through to the following October or November. It is Having annual May-to-May Sessions will ensure not giving away any state secrets to say that that was that the final Session of the Parliament is more likely the assumption. We then considered whether it was to be much more meaningful and worth while than better to move to a situation where, if we were going to one which, for example, begins in late November and have fixed-term Parliaments, the Sessions should run lasts until the wash-up in late March. The noble annually, May to May. An announcement was made in Baroness, Lady Armstrong, says, “We’ll see”, but nothing September, which would normally have been between could be less exciting or satisfying than what we a third and half way through the Session. There was experienced in the wash-up last year when we tried to an option to truncate the Session about now, but it deal with so many Bills that had barely got anywhere. was thought that the best thing to do was to go to next Parts of the Constitutional Reform and Governance year. There is nothing sinister in that; we were totally Bill, which had had only a Second Reading in this open. However, this is a one-off change and from next House, were passed with only the briefest scrutiny. It year, Sessions will go from May to May. That is the had some pre-legislative scrutiny, but no scrutiny in right way to proceed. I hope the noble Lord will accept this House. I hope that noble Lords would agree that that there was nothing sinister in this, but that it was at the end of the day actual legislative scrutiny is more an adjustment made in-year, given that the original important than pre-legislative scrutiny. expectation was to go through until the autumn of this year. Lord Bach: It is best to have both; I quite agree. That Bill had enormous pre-legislative scrutiny, but Lord Grocott: I am not saying that it is sinister; I am should have had more legislative scrutiny. There, I just saying that it is illogical. If the Government have said it. Now perhaps the noble and learned that decided in those five days in May that there were to be Lord will admit that his Government, too, are in error. five-year fixed-term Parliaments, why was it not plain More importantly, they are passing legislation now, so as a pikestaff that in normal circumstances that would they should learn from any mistakes that we may have mean five annual Sessions? No adjustment was required. made. A year would take you to the following May, then the May after that and so on. I do not need to go through Lord Wallace of Tankerness: This legislation is having it. With respect, it seems obvious to everyone in the ample legislative scrutiny and I suspect that in times to House apart from the Minister that that is the logic of come we will move towards having much more pre- a five-year Parliament. legislative scrutiny. That is why I argue for five-year I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, fixed terms; there will be more opportunity for pre- which have been 100 per cent on the side of those who legislative scrutiny as well as legislative scrutiny. I agree with the amendment. 527 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] European Council Decision 528

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: We did not, in those Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support five days in May, think about moving from one year to the adoption of draft European Council Decision one year to one year. That is the simple answer and EUC 33/10. I hope that the noble Lord will accept it at face value. Relevant document: 10th Report from the European Union Committee. Lord Grocott: Of course I accept that and I shall not labour it further if the Minister assures me that The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth the coalition was not going to tamper with that aspect Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My Lords, this of our constitution. However, I emphasise the sheer Motion is a necessary part of the process leading to a inconsistency of rejecting this amendment when the treaty change required by the member states of the whole rationale—if there is one, although I doubt it as European Union in the eurozone. I shall explain the every day passes—of the Government’s comprehensive purpose of, and need for, the Motion in detail in a constitutional reform programme is to provide a degree moment. However, at the outset I observe that it is of predictability and take away powers from the Executive. very much in the United Kingdom’s national interest My amendment simply tests the Government’s sincerity that this House, under the terms of the European and commitment to that by requiring them to correct Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which we all recall, their very inadequate and unsatisfactory decision should approve this Motion without amendment so unilaterally to make it much easier for the Government that the Prime Minister may support the adoption of to legislate. the draft European Council decision to amend Article 136 I fear that there is a tendency by the Minister—it is of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European understandable when you are taking a complicated Union at the European Council meeting scheduled for and important Bill such as this through the House on 24 and 25 March. your own—to assume that, if any amendment is put As the Leader of the House made clear in his down, particularly by the opposition Benches, the Statement following the December European Council, duty of the people in the Box is to find reasons for no one should doubt that stability in the eurozone is saying no to it. If the Minister were to put a cold towel important for the United Kingdom. A large proportion over his head and think in as dispassionate a way as of our trade is with the eurozone and London is he is allowed—I do not mean “allowed” in any sense Europe’s international financial centre. It is because of other than that this Government seem to be totally this interrelationship that the UK’s financial institutions locked into their constitutional reform programmes, and companies, both big and small, have huge exposure which do not seem to be thought out in a coherent to the banks and businesses based throughout the way—he would come to the conclusion that, once the eurozone. Worsening stability is therefore a real threat deal had been sealed between the Prime Minister and to the UK economy, as I am sure all your Lordships the Deputy Prime Minister, there would be no flexibility appreciate. on that Bench to make any adjustments whatever. In explaining the background, I begin by reminding Before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, the House of the conclusion drawn on this proposed perhaps I may appeal to the Minister to tell those of a treaty change by the European Union Sub-Committee higher pay grade that this really is a sensible proposal, on Economic and Financial Affairs and International which, so far as we have tested the opinion of the Trade at its meeting on 1 February. In his letter to the Committee, has 100 per cent support from everyone Minister for Europe, the chairman of the Select Committee but the Government, and that, if they are to be on the European Union said: consistent in their principles, about which, as I said, I “We fully support your view that it is in the UK’s interest to am not thrilled, they really ought to see the logic and support a stable and prosperous Eurozone. Given that this Treaty sense of having fixed annual Sessions within five-year amendment would not apply to, or have any financial risks for, fixed Parliaments. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the UK, we support your intention to vote in favour of this the amendment. amendment. We have agreed to clear this document from scrutiny”. From that background quotation I move to the Amendment 15 withdrawn. reason why are we having this short debate this evening. First, Section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act, arising of course from the Lisbon treaty, requires Amendments 16 and 17 not moved. that when a draft decision under the simplified revision procedure—that is, Article 48(6) of the treaty—is House resumed. Committee to begin again not before proposed, a Minister must introduce a Motion and 8.43 pm. have it passed by both Houses without amendment before the Prime Minister can signal his agreement to the adoption of that draft decision at a subsequent European Council Decision: EUC Report European Council. Secondly, if the House approves Motion to Approve this Motion, it authorises the Prime Minister to agree to this draft decision and this draft decision alone at the European Council. Should there be any amendment 7.43 pm to the draft decision at the European Council, the Moved By Lord Howell of Guildford Prime Minister could not agree to it at the European Council without first coming back to another place That, in accordance with Section 6 of the European and this House for additional approval. Therefore, the Union (Amendment) Act 2008, this House approves draft decision referred to in this Motion will be the 529 European Council Decision[LORDS] European Council Decision 530

[LORD HOWELL OF GUILDFORD] colleagues at the Treasury are responsible for overseeing version that is agreed at the European Council. There the UK input to these discussions. can be no other without the further approval of this I stress that although we are involved on a voluntary House in a further debate such as the one that we are basis in the design of the mechanism—it is very much having tonight. in our interest to be so—we cannot and will not be If the draft decision is adopted by the European part of it. In fact, we could not be part of it unless we Council under Article 48(6), all 27 member states must joined the euro area. As the whole House is aware, this then also approve the treaty change in accordance Government will not join the euro and, if the EU Bill with their respective constitutional requirements before becomes law, any future Government who wished to the decision can enter into force. This means that the do so could join only with parliamentary approval by treaty amendment itself will not come into effect until Act of Parliament and the British people’s approval by the UK and all other member states approve or ratify referendum. I should like to reassure your Lordships the adopted decision. that the proposed treaty change does not and will not However, if the European Union Bill, which has transfer any competence or power from the United just been introduced to this House and will have its Kingdom to the European Union. As I said, this Second Reading tomorrow, becomes law, this treaty treaty change is in our national interests. Instability in change will also be subject to Parliament’s approval by the eurozone has direct implications for the UK and Act before the UK can ratify it. We have made it clear all the other economies in the single market and that we shall proceed in accordance with the provisions beyond. of that Bill. In other words, there will be a full further On top of that, the Prime Minster negotiated opportunity for your Lordships to debate this matter successfully two important objectives. First, as the when the treaty change comes forward in due course conclusions of the December European Council for ratification, which under our new procedures will confirm—that is the so-called recitals—once the ESM require the full processes of primary legislation. That is established to safeguard the stability of the euro is an important change from the position in the past. area, Article 122(2), on which basis the old EFSM was I turn to how the proposed treaty change came established, will no longer be used for such purposes. about. As your Lordships will know, it originates from Our liability for helping to bail out the euro area the need for a permanent mechanism to be established through European Union borrowing backed by the by the member states of the euro area to safeguard the EU budget will cease. It is crucial to our interests that financial stability of the euro area as a whole. That is it does cease. Secondly, securing a tight budget for the an obvious need. In May last year, the European future is our highest priority. At the last two European Union established two emergency instruments to respond Councils, Britain led an alliance of member states in to financial crises. The first is the European financial limiting the 2011 EU budget increase to 2.91 per cent, stability facility. This is a temporary facility established as your Lordships have already discussed and debated intergovernmentally by euro area member states to in this House. In moving forward, working alongside provide loans to euro area member states in difficulty. key partners such as France, Germany, the Netherlands It is a limited fund and is due to end in June 2013. The and Finland, we are committed to a real-terms freeze second is the European financial stability mechanism, in the EU budget from 2014 to 2020 and we have which the coalition Government, of whom I am a written to the President of the European Commission member, inherited from the previous Government. setting out our position. Under this mechanism, the Council can agree, by Without this Motion this evening, the consequences qualified majority, to the Commission providing assistance would be serious and damaging for Britain. The Prime using money raised on the financial markets, backed Minster would not be able to signal his support for the by the EU budget. It therefore creates an indirect draft decision at the March European Council next liability for the United Kingdom. That is a very important week and the decision then could not be adopted, as point. like all other treaty changes it requires unanimity. This Against the backdrop of continued uncertainty in means that, if it failed, Britain would remain indirectly financial markets, the members of the European Council liable for eurozone bailouts through the EFSM, as it agreed in December to amend Article 136 of the would not have been replaced by the ESM. By supporting Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union the adoption of this treaty change at the March European to provide that member states of the eurozone may Council, the UK will be supporting the members of establish a permanent stability mechanism. This the eurozone to establish a permanent mechanism, mechanism, the European stability mechanism or ESM, which will make clear the responsibilities of all the will provide a necessary means for dealing with cases members of the eurozone to each other and to the that pose a risk to the financial stability of the euro overall stability of the euro area. area as a whole, so it is important to us given the That means that we will ensure that our current extent of our trade with it. This is what we are dealing indirect liability for eurozone bailouts comes to an end with tonight. in 2013. As this new mechanism is established using The details of how the ESM will operate are being the treaty provisions specific to members of the euro discussed in Brussels. In accordance with the conclusions area, it will not apply to non-euro area member states of the December European Council, member states and cannot confer any obligations on them. I hope whose currency is not the euro can be involved, on a that I have provided your Lordships with an explanation voluntary basis, in finalising work on the design of the of the mechanisms, which I agree are not simple, and ESM, which will be established by intergovernmental the purposes for passing this Motion tonight. I beg to arrangement among the eurozone member states. My move. 531 European Council Decision[21 MARCH 2011] European Council Decision 532

Lord Harrison: My Lords, the importance of this parliaments or a convention of Governments, the debate is that the decisions will be made by the European European Parliament and the European Central Bank Council at the end of this week, on 24 and 25 March. is not convened. Instead, it requires that the European I speak as the chair of the Economic and Financial Parliament and the Commission are consulted and Affairs and International Trade Sub-Committee, which that, because of the exceptional circumstances, the has had correspondence with the Government on this. European Central Bank is also consulted. As the The matter has also gone to your Lordships’ European Minister explained, that has to be ratified by all member Union Select Committee for scrutiny. It was thought states. Hence we have a separate Motion in each appropriate in the light of the importance of this House. debate that this report should be provided on amending Mention has been made of tomorrow’s Second Article 136 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the Reading of the EU Bill. It is perhaps unusual for us to European Union in order to help colleagues to come look prospectively as far as it touches on this matter, to a decision. but it is probably right to do so. We have to attain The noble Lord has rightly pointed out the origins parliamentary approval for voting on treaty amendments. of the problem and the creation of a response to the Then we have to ask whether a referendum to be financial crisis brought about by our Greek colleagues. ratified by the British people would follow. We think That relates to the establishment of the European that the amendment of Article 136 does not fall foul of financial stability facility, which is agreed by member that provision, under Clause 4. The Government, as is states within the eurozone, and the EFSM, the separate their obligation, have stated that it does not apply. The mechanism that draws on the European Union budget Government’s Explanatory Memorandum also points and, therefore, involves the United Kingdom. out that the new mechanism will not apply to non-euro states. The amendment does not involve an increase of As the Minister said, the matter was raised under the European Union’s competences, as we understand Article 122(2) of the European Union treaty, which it. The amendment therefore provides for action solely points out that, in exceptional circumstances that are in the euro area. The mechanism is set up by euro beyond the control of any one member state, action members and hence separates the United Kingdom can be taken to help out that member state. We wrote from involvement. to the Government and asked whether they felt that It is a matter of urgency to support the setting up of that conflicted with Article 125, which is the no-bailout the European stability mechanism, which must be clause, but the Government replied to us insisting that ratified by all member states. The Prime Minister and the EFSM provided loans not bailouts and that, therefore, the Foreign Secretary both said at the outset of their there is a distinction. Incidentally, we have also drawn tenure that the viability and support of the euro was on the report, which we hope will be cleared by the important for Britain’s financial future. That, too, Select Committee tomorrow, on EU economic governance. must be underlined. I hope that the short document Within that report we interviewed many experts on produced by the European Union Select Committee, these matters in looking at the basis for the decisions on advice from Sub-Committee A, has been useful for made. There is agreement that this was the right and this debate. proper way forward. We arrive at a situation where a new permanent Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank my crisis mechanism has to be created at the end of 2013 right honourable friend for introducing the measure when the mechanism and the facility are abandoned. before the House. I accept 100 per cent that the On 16 and 17 December 2010, the European Council provisions do not apply to us. I entirely support the decided on the new mechanism, which is to be called Government’s attitude that they should not in any way the European stability mechanism. It is also the case obstruct the setting up of the ESM. I thank the noble that Article 122(2), the exceptional circumstances clause, Lord, Lord Harrison, for the helpful report published is no longer to be used. Instead—I think that it is true by the Select Committee. I just have two brief questions to say that there was pressure from Chancellor Merkel for my right honourable friend. of Germany, who wanted not to fall foul of the German constitutional court—there was insistence on having a treaty change and hence an amendment to Noble Lords: Noble friend. Article 136 as printed in the document that we have submitted and which is being proposed now. The Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My noble friend, my right process is that, under Article 48(6) of the European honourable and noble friend, as he always is and Union treaty, amendments to part 3 of the Treaty of always will be. the Functioning of the European Union, which includes As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned, at Article 136, the subject of the debate this evening, can paragraph 6 of the report the Select Committee be appropriate. Therefore, as the Minister has explained, commented—admittedly, it was talking about the EFSM we have the simplified revision procedure as the mechanism rather than the ESM—that it did not conflict with the for achieving that. Perhaps we should say that this is “no bailout” provisions in the original Maastricht the first use of that procedure. treaty, now incorporated in the TFEU. Of course, I know only what I read in the report about how it was 8pm argued by witnesses before the committee that that did The amendment was agreed in the European Council. not constitute a bailout because the EFSM did not The effect of the simplified procedure is that an assume responsibility for the debts. The same arguments intergovernmental conference, a convention of national must arise with the ESM. 533 European Council Decision[LORDS] European Council Decision 534

[LORD LAMONT OF LERWICK] possibly, if one looks at what is happening now in Does the Minister seriously, with a straight face, Portugal—not to mention Greece, Ireland, Italy and believe that that does not constitute an infringement perhaps Spain—in the short term. The euro’s main of the “no bailout” provisions? It seems extraordinary design faults, as some of us have been trying to point to say that just because loans are being extended, if out since before it was born, are that it is a currency there is a rescheduling of debts, that does not constitute area without a federal budget. There is no mechanism a bailout. I do not think that that is what the Germans for sending support from rich areas in the zone to the had in mind at the time, when they argued against poor areas. Its different economies also suffer from a bailouts and for a “no bailout”provision in the Maastricht single interest rate and exchange rate with the results Treaty. Bear in mind that the new facility, the ESM, we are already seeing in the countries I have mentioned. will, like the EFSM, issue securities which will be The Government’s answer to that in this Motion guaranteed by the member Governments of the EU. I tonight seems to be that there is nothing to worry know that this is a sideshow for our Government, but about because this new ESM means that the poor old it is extraordinary to describe that as not conflicting Germans will pay and so will the French, the Dutch with the “no bailout” provisions. and the other countries that already donate to keep The second question I want to ask my right honourable the whole unfortunate project of European integration and noble friend is more directly germane to the UK. afloat. The question is: will they? For how long? How When the German Government agreed to support the much? Even if the cosy European political class thinks ESM, part of the package they insisted on, from what it is all a splendid idea, what about real people? What I read in the newspapers, was something called the about the massive public protests in Portugal over the competitiveness pact, which covered a whole range of weekend and those we have seen in Greece? What policies including: the indexation of wages as applied about Marine Le Pen in France? Indeed, what about to countries such as Belgium; the retirement age; and UKIP in the recent Barnsley by-election? [Laughter.] having a uniform system of corporate tax. All that was Well, I had to put that plug in. put forward as part of a quid pro quo that the German Government wanted in exchange for agreeing to the What about another thing? This is a question to the ESM, to which there was some resistance on the part Minister. What about the vote in the German Bundestag of the German public. last Thursday, when five out of the six main parties gave their consent to the ESM but only with some As my right honourable and noble friend may have strings attached? I know this is only a European noticed, fears have been raised in the Economist magazine Parliament, which is made irrelevant, as we know, that those provisions could have an impact wider than under the project of European integration. It is not the eurozone and might affect us and other non-euro the European Union, but nevertheless, those strings members of the EU. I entirely support the Government’s are important. They included strengthening the stability policy of allowing what is happening with the and growth pact, guaranteeing the independence of establishment of the ESM to go ahead; for us to have the European Central Bank, guaranteeing that the nothing to do with it but to allow it to go ahead; but I EMS would be activated only in emergency cases, a am concerned by the points made by the Economist restructuring procedure that would include private about how that could spill over into measures that would creditors and a guarantee that the eurozone would not have an effect on competition and the competitiveness turn into a transfer union. This last string looks something of the rest of the EU. The magazine argued that the like shutting the stable door to me, but perhaps the competitiveness of the whole might be undermined by Minister will care to opine. Does the ESM in effect set protectionist measures taken under the rubric of the up a transfer union in clear breach of Article 125 or competitiveness pact. I hope that my right honourable does it not? and noble friend follows my point. I would like to be assured that that is not the case. I would like to be told The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, agreed with the how the competitiveness pact will be given legislative Government that it does not breach Article 125, so effect and how we will ensure that it does not have perhaps it is worth putting on the record, very briefly, adverse repercussions on us, and other countries not the key part of Article 125, which states: in the eurozone. “The Union shall not be shall be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments … A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments”. Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I rise to speak I agree with my noble friend—if I may call him against the Motion. The heart of the Government’s that—Lord Lamont. Of course this does that. At the case is that it is in our national interest to help the very least, even for Article 122, so roundly abused just countries in the eurozone, so we should not withhold before the present Government came to power, which our consent to the proposed European stability was designed to help out with natural disasters and mechanism. To justify that, the Government even trot things like that, surely a loan which is not repaid out the tired old propaganda about half of our trade becomes a commitment. Here with this ESM, we are being with the eurozone, which is irrelevant nonsense, in the clearest possible terms breaching Article 125. I as I have often pointed out. would like the Minister to tell us: are we are helping to The Government are really asking us to agree that setting up a transfer union or are we not? the euro should be propped up, which is a very different The Bundestag’s third condition—that the ESM and risky thing to do. I say that because the euro is so should be used only in emergency cases—also looks a badly designed that it may be un-prop-up-able, certainly bit optimistic. It reflects the proposed additional paragraph in the long term, probably in the medium term and to Article 136 which states that the ESM will be 535 European Council Decision[21 MARCH 2011] European Council Decision 536 activated only if it is indispensable to save the stability I do not intend to attempt to dissect the speech of of the euro as a whole. I think the Minister told us that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in great detail, but I this detail has not yet been worked out. We are voting point out to him that member states are not donating for something that we do not know how it will work. anything to anyone via this mechanism. The Irish are Can he tell us who or what will decide when the use of paying 6 per cent on these loans and are grumbling the ESM has become indispensable? Will it be the mightily about them, so just as the British Government Council, in which we sit, and if so will we have a vote, are getting a good return on the loans that they are or will it be the Commission and/or the central bank? making, member states that are making loans under Will the IMF be involved, which again concerns us? In this mechanism will be getting a pretty good return. short, can the Minister tell us how the new European stability mechanism will be activated? Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I did not 8.15 pm suggest that this Government were donating to any other member state through this mechanism; I merely To conclude, I submit that it is really not in this pointed out that we donate generally to the coffers of country’s interest to prop up the euro. The quicker it the European Union—to the tune this year of £17.6 billion disintegrates the better, with countries that cannot gross and £8.3 billion net. That is net cash that we are afford to be part of it going back to their national sending to Brussels and that goes down the drain currencies. Only then will they be able to start trading there—a figure, I might say, that we are struggling to their way out of the colossal debts into which the euro cut from our own public expenditure. and the project of European integration have led them. Mr Van Rompuy has just said that the EU will collapse if the euro fails. I fear he may be wrong and Lord Newby: My Lords, I apologise to the noble that the juggernaut of European integration could Lord. I misheard him. I distinctly wrote down that he continue without the euro and would indeed do so, but said that a donation was involved in this process. if he turns out to be right, what a pleasant prospect My one question to the Minister springs from my greets us: no Commission, no Committee of Permanent concern about the way in which the eurozone is developing, Representatives, no Council of Ministers, no European which is simply that the UK’s role in relation to it is Court of so-called Justice, no EU Parliament, none of extremely strange. We are obviously not part of it, so the colossal fraud, waste and overregulation which we are not in many of the meetings. Yet from time to weigh us down at home and in our competition and time we are allowed to have a say. What worries me is trade with the rest of the world. We would be left with that with the passage of time that say gets less and less a Europe of democratic nations freely trading and over a whole raft of economic decisions across the EU. collaborating. It is to those sunlit uplands that the In the current exercise, we were allowed to help in the Government should be leading this country and the design of the ESM, which presumably means that rest of Europe. That is where the national interest lies, Treasury officials went to meetings to talk about how not in this grubby instrument of doubtful legality. it was going to work. What worries me is that, once it is established, those Treasury officials will be told that Lord Newby: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure they have been extremely helpful, that their advice has to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, been most valuable and that they can now go back to because I always think that debates in your Lordships’ London and let the rest of the eurozone implement House are much better when we are not all agreeing the policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has with each other. He wants the euro to fail. We on these pointed out, there are a whole raft of secondary Benches want it to succeed, and therefore we support consequences for the competitiveness pact, which will the Motion before us this evening. Without having a undoubtedly have an impact on the UK and on which, huge discussion on the history of the euro, it is perhaps as far as I understand it, we will have no say at all in worth reminding ourselves that the euro has survived the future. the worst financial crisis certainly in our lifetimes, and Will the Minister explain whether, once the ESM is has survived many naysayers over the past two or established, there will be any further role for the UK three years who very confidently and regularly predicted Government and their officials in the design of the that it was about to collapse. It is quite clear that the conditions that might be required or suggested from euro is not going to collapse and that the eurozone is time to time to apply in particular cases when member going to continue. Indeed, it is likely to be strengthened states are being bailed out? These changes could be as a result of the decisions which are currently being extremely worrying, not necessarily because they or finalised. the conditions are bad in themselves but because, It is one of the long-standing features of our view although we are affected by them, we will have had no of the EU and the euro that at every point they were say in the way in which they are put together. about to collapse and, indeed, that the European venture was about to stall, and at every point it has moved forward in its peculiar but almost inevitable Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I suppose I could just way. There was a typical example of this attitude just say that I agree with everything that the noble Lord, last week when the FT, reporting on the eurozone Lord Pearson, has said and sit down, but I will not summit on this mechanism, had as its headline “Leaders do that. cut surprise deal on key reforms”. The history of I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for explaining European development has been leaders predictably very complicated legislation to us. I think I understand cutting surprise deals when nearing a deadline, which it a bit better now that he has explained it. Nevertheless, is exactly what has happened here. I believe that it is a serious matter that we are discussing. 537 European Council Decision[LORDS] European Council Decision 538

[LORD STODDART OF SWINDON] be no part of this country’s policy to maintain the I think I am right in saying that, during debates on the eurozone in being no matter what the circumstances Lisbon treaty, the then Official Opposition considered are. Article 48(6)to be an unnecessary and perhaps dangerous Let us not forget that the experience of the eurozone measure that could be used to extend European Union so far has not been a happy one. At least four of its power without proper parliamentary scrutiny. I feel members are in dire financial and economic trouble, that that was their position at the time. Now, even needing massive tranches—that is what this debate is though they have been in power for only 10 months, about—of bail-out money. Interest rates in the eurozone they are using this provision to extend the power of have been kept at an artificially high rate, thus resulting the eurozone. I do not know what has happened. in lower growth in many of its member states and very Perhaps the Liberal part of the coalition is having high unemployment. That is something this country more influence than it should. should deplore, wherever it occurs. There has not been an IGC, which has been pointed Being in the eurozone does not affect our trade in out already. The Motion received only one and a half the way that the Minister outlined. The fact is that we hour’s debate in the House of Commons and a dinner are in Europe and we are part of the single market, hour debate in this House. We are not really having the and whether the eurozone exists or not, the single sort of discussion that we should have before the market will still be there, as it was there before we Prime Minister goes to Europe to make a decision. It joined the eurozone. What I believe is that being may be that we will have further discussions in due within the European Union and within the single course but this Motion is to give the Prime Minister market in fact damages our ability to export to the the power to act under Article 48(6). It is the first time much wider world than the European Union represents. that that has been done and it is therefore a serious Already we see the Chinese and the Indians making matter. Although we are not at present members of great inroads into markets in Africa and elsewhere the eurozone and ESM will not affect us, it will nevertheless which, untrammelled by the European Union, this become part of the European Union’s powers across country could be exploiting. I have some doubts about the board. If this country should join the eurozone, this measure, although I suppose it is going to go this provision would automatically apply to us. That through. But I hope that the assurances which have surely is right. If it is not right, perhaps the noble Lord been given by the Minister will be carried out. will say that it is not right and why it is not right. Furthermore, this first use of the simplified revision 8.30 pm procedures is likely to be the thin end of the wedge. This will not be the first time that it will be used. Once Lord Liddle: This debate has been a curious experience a provision is used, it sets a precedent and it will be for me because, having listened to the contributions of much easier to use it on other occasions in the future. the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord It is claimed that when the European Union Bill, Stoddart of Swindon, I am perhaps a much stronger which we will discuss tomorrow, becomes law, it will supporter of what the Government are doing than I prevent Article 48(6) from being misused. But can we think I ought to be. I believe that the Government are be certain of that? Will the noble Lord say that there right to support this measure and I think that both will never be any conditions under which Article 48(6) noble Lords are completely wrong in thinking that cannot be used without parliamentary procedure or somehow it would be in the British national interest perhaps even a referendum? Since the measure has to to pull the house of the euro down, causing currency be agreed by a unanimous vote, the United Kingdom chaos and economic disruption on a huge scale in at present has a veto. order to pursue their own hatred and fanaticism in During the election, the Conservatives said that their opposition to the European Union. they wanted to repatriate to this country a range of measures which they believed were inimical to the best Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My suggestion was not interests of the United Kingdom. Why then are the that we should pull the eurozone down but that it is Government not using this factor—the fact that they not necessary for us to take these measures to bolster have a veto over this provision being discussed tonight—to the eurozone at all. renegotiate parts of the treaties which are inimical to British interests, especially those relating to industry and commerce? I am also puzzled as to why the Lord Liddle: Of course I accept what the noble eurozone nations cannot agree a system of control Lord says, but the implication was that the euro would that does not involve a treaty change. Is it perhaps come tumbling down, and I think that the economic because Germany wishes to use this procedure to consequences for us, with our trade and economic strengthen its position as leader of the European links to Europe, would be very serious. Further, the Union? instability that would be created by a German mark The Government state that maintaining the eurozone soaring and a Greek drachma plunging would be too as a stable and fully functioning entity is in the United horrendous to contemplate. Kingdom’s interest and the European Union Committee What I want to do in my brief remarks is to declare endorses that view. I do not believe that that is necessarily that I support what is being proposed, but with two so. I am not at all sure that the eurozone is necessary qualifications. First, what we have seen tonight is an for this country to prosper. Indeed, I could probably, if excellent example of parliamentary accountability. This there was time, produce an argument to show that the motion has been put to the House and, before it is eurozone works against this country’s interests. It should approved by the European Council, we have an 539 European Council Decision[21 MARCH 2011] European Council Decision 540 opportunity to say whether we agree with it or not. If I Of course, the new regime is not ideal and it is work may anticipate the debate tomorrow on the EU Bill, in progress—I dare say that my noble friend Lord this is in sharp contrast to what will be proposed Eatwell will say something about this. My strong view under the new arrangements. What we are going to is that if something is not ideal we should use our have there is a requirement for the Government somehow maximum influence to try to change it. Obviously, to argue that, under the proposed criteria, a referendum there is no immediate prospect of us joining the euro would not be justified for this measure. I am totally and becoming part of the ESM, but we should try to opposed to multiple referenda and will be arguing that involve ourselves intimately in the discussions that are tomorrow, but on the basis that the Government are taking place. I am worried that the Government, as far arguing, it seems extraordinary to suggest that what as I can see, are not doing that. Mrs Merkel, as I we have before us with the European stability mechanism understand it, made an offer to the British Government is somehow not a big extension of competence and is whereby they could be part of the competitiveness not significant. It is extremely significant. pact that she was trying to negotiate. Apparently the British Government have said that they do not wish to Indeed, I would argue that what is happening in the be part of that pact, whereas Poland, which is equally eurozone at the moment is as significant a development not a member of the euro area, is anxious not to be for the strengthening of its governance as we have had excluded from these decisions on economic governance since the establishment of the single currency and the questions which go wider than the eurozone. single market in the 1980s. It is a far more significant development than the Treaty of Lisbon or the There is a significant problem here for the United constitutional treaty that preceded it. It is for European Kingdom and the Government ought to recognise integration very significant. this. They should also recognise that something of fundamental importance to our economic future and, One cannot argue that this is of no relevance to indeed, to our sovereignty is happening here. Britain. For one thing, the ESM will be one pillar of a new regime of economic governance that includes Lord Eatwell: My Lords, as noble Lords will be macroeconomic surveillance and a competiveness pact. aware, this is the first time that a Motion of this sort I do not argue that these measures are perfect; in fact, has been debated in your Lordships’ House. We are, as they are far less than ideal and this should be very the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, creating a precedent, much work in progress. However, integration of economic although I am not entirely clear how long the precedent governance is certainly proceeding. will last with respect to the discussion that we will have tomorrow. However, it clearly is important that we The Government make the crucial error of thinking should define the criterion that we ought to apply to of this question in terms of a transfer of power to our assessment of the Motion. Brussels from the United Kingdom. They argue that, because Britain is not in the eurozone, there is no The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum transfer of power. However, what in fact is going on suggests that they have clearly applied the criterion of within the whole of the European Union at the moment the “UK national interest”. In support of this Motion is a very big shift in the balance of power, with the to give the green light to the establishment of the likely creation of a eurozone bloc that has a much ESM, the memorandum states emphatically: bigger influence on the economic policies of the whole “We therefore support this draft proposal to amend the Treaty of the EU. It is about this important change in the to make clear that the euro area Member States can establish a balance of power that we should really be concerned, permanent ESM. The UK will directly benefit”— instead of going on about transfers of power. directly benefit— “from increased stability of the euro area brought about by the Perhaps I may cite one example that is directly ESM, without being part of the new mechanism or having any related to the subject of the ESM: the issue of financial obligations under it”. regulation. If we have a sovereign debt crisis in a The noble Lord, Lord Howell, repeated at some length eurozone member country and it is necessary for there the idea that this is directly in Britain’s benefit. Indeed, to be a restructuring of the debt, it will logically lead so important is the ESM deemed to be to the UK that, to problems in the banks which own the bonds that as the Explanatory Memorandum tells us, and as the have lost much of their face value. That will in turn Minister confirmed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer require new rules on the capital adequacy of banks eagerly proposed UK participation in the design of and on banking mergers. If there are to be in future the mechanism—participation which has apparently stages restructurings of Greek and Irish sovereign taken place. debt, there will also be grave consequences for financial This repeated emphasis on the importance of the regulation and the banking system. We are exposing ESM to the UK and of UK participation in the design ourselves to real loss of influence on these matters, process sits rather uncomfortably with the other theme because it will be a eurozone bloc that decides in terms of the Explanatory Memorandum: of its own interests what those regulations should be. “The ESM established by the proposed treaty change will be We will turn up at the Council of Finance Ministers set up by the euro area countries for euro area countries with no with that decision in practice having been taken, with financial liability on the non-euro area Member States or the EU majority voting there in the Council of Finance Ministers, budget. There are therefore no direct financial implications associated and with very little opportunity for us to influence it. with agreeing the draft decisions to amend the TFEU to establish When one thinks that the City of London is one of the ESM”. our key interests, one realises that this is quite a So on the one hand we have a direct benefit, but on the serious threat to us. other hand there are no direct financial implications. 541 European Council Decision[LORDS] European Council Decision 542

[LORD EATWELL] long-suffering citizens of Greece and Ireland, and It is, of course, entirely possible to hold these perhaps Spain and Portugal, with damaging political seemingly contradictory positions at the same time. consequences for the European Union and, crucially, For example, the policies of the United States Government damaging economic consequences for the UK. In have a direct economic impact on the UK, and yet we other words, the proposed ESM neither creates an have no responsibility for their financial implications. effective default mechanism nor provides for a fresh However, the key difference here is that we do have a flow of funding to countries in the grip of a debt crisis. direct responsibility—we have actually participated in Indeed, it will weaken that flow. This mechanism will the design of this mechanism. This Government have not work. Therefore, it is not in the best interests of both a primary and a secondary responsibility for the the UK that it be implemented. mechanism agreed: primarily because we participated When the Minister sums up, will he confirm that in its design; and secondarily because, as has frequently my description of the proposed working of the ESM been acknowledged, the performance of the ESM is of agreed last week is accurate? What do the Government direct national interest to the UK. expect the impact to be of defining ESM debt as In his introduction the Minister told us nothing senior on private debt markets? Have the Government whatever about the ESM itself. It really is essential assessed the impact of that measure on current interest that, when he sums up, he remedy that failure and rate premiums? Will he say precisely why Her Majesty’s answer some of the pertinent questions about the Government believe that the likely outcome of the impact of the ESM on the UK. He quoted my noble proposed mechanism will be to the benefit of the UK? friend Lord Harrison, saying that we should support a Will he explain to the House why Her Majesty’s stable and prosperous eurozone, which of course we Government are prepared to ratify a change to the should; but when my noble friend wrote that letter in treaty that is likely to have damaging economic February he could not have known what we know consequences for the UK? He said that not to ratify now. In the early hours of the morning of Saturday, would expose the UK because of the continuation of 13 March, eurozone leaders reached agreement on the the EFSM, but the EFSM is reviewed every six months. structure of the ESM, to be ratified by the European There is no unconditional continuation of that particular Council this week. The assessment of whether the mechanism and no continuing exposure of the UK. agreement of 13 March is or is not in the best interests I said in my opening remarks that we are creating a of the UK is the key issue and it should be based on precedent. It would be unfortunate if that precedent one clear criterion: will it work? That is the fundamental were to be that Motions are agreed by this House on question, which the Minister has not even bothered to the nod, without proper scrutiny. I fully understand address this evening. and sympathise with the noble Lord that many of the technical aspects of the ESM were agreed only a week 8.45 pm ago. But it was a full week ago. Surely we could have The purpose of the ESM is to provide a mechanism considered what those mechanisms were, and the for managing debt crises within the eurozone. There is Government could have made a report to this House no doubt that that would be a good thing, in the words explaining the mechanisms which have been agreed of 1066 And All That. There are two ways of managing and assessing their impact on the UK. If we are a debt crisis: either by a bailout—the provision of unable to assess the actual measures precisely, then—if funds or guarantees; or by restructuring—or, to give it the noble Lord really has respect for this House—he its proper name, default. The crucial factor in the should withdraw this Motion and bring it back with design of the ESM which distinguishes it from previous proper documentation so that we can fully assess the mechanisms is that it provides a mechanism for default— impact of the actual mechanism which we are being something essentially impossible today without falling asked to agree. foul of the German constitutional court, since Germany, under current mechanisms, would have to make good Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful on the guarantees that it has provided. The default to all those who have spoken on this Motion and mechanism works by making the loans and guarantees applied their—in many cases—extremely acute learning made by the ESM senior to those made by all other and expertise to the various issues that arise. The investors in euro-country bonds. So the private investors noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who has just spoken with are at risk, but the ESM is at far less risk. the tremendous skill of a professional economist, if I There is a catch in this: the private investors will may dare call him that—but anyway an expert—made notice. Indeed, today’s private investors will notice some very acute points. He seemed at one point to what is coming in two years’ time and, even now, will come very near to questioning the whole future virtue be far less willing to support the bonds of Governments of the euro and the eurozone and asking me to describe who are likely to get into trouble. That is how financial details of the ESM system, of which of course the markets work. So the device does not actually get the design is not yet complete. He is asking me to produce German Government off the hook. Will the German something that simply does not exist yet and, much as Government be willing to push for systemic default I am anxious to please him, I cannot do that this when they are no longer on the line, when they have evening. The ESM has yet to be completed. The only senior debt and others are forced into a junior British Government will be involved in input to that position? The likely answer is no, because the opprobrium design, but we will not actually be part of it—so I am would be too great for the eurozone to survive. Instead, not quite sure how I can describe something that has with this design of the ESM, there will just be more not yet been put together yet. I would love to try, but bailouts and more onerous conditions imposed on the I am not sure how I can do it. 543 European Council Decision[21 MARCH 2011] European Council Decision 544

Lord Eatwell: Would the Minister explain why he is which is the one governing the EFSM, will no longer asking this House to agree to a Motion that he asserts be used. That is just as well because it had a liability is going to be in the best interests of the UK when he for the UK. does not even know the mechanism that the Motion My noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked will create? two questions. The first was on whether Article 125 was compatible with having no bailout. He asked Lord Howell of Guildford: For the obvious reason whether I, with a straight face, could make various that, in order to go ahead with the design of the ESM, assertions on that matter. I will give him what is in the there has to be first this Motion and then the alteration brief before me, which has some strong validity.Article 125 of the treaty, which under our new provisions of the of the treaty provides a clear assurance that no member EU Bill will also be debated in this House. We have to state shall receive a bailout. However, it does not start the process off. If the proposition is that we preclude the EU or member states from providing cannot start until we know everything and that we are loans to one other. The EU’s balance of payments not going to know everything until we start, the noble facility has already provided medium-term financial Lord is asking me to go around in circles. That is often assistance to a number of member states. Article 2(1) the fate of those in government, but in this case of the EFSM regulation makes it clear that the financial I prefer to begin to proceed on a process. Of course, assistance it envisages is strictly confined to either a I cannot stand here and say that what is going to loan or a credit, so that would need to be paid back. emerge for the ESM and members of the eurozone That is the explanation. I am a little worried about the will all be wonderful and work perfectly and that the straightness or otherwise of my face, yet that makes eurozone will be happy for ever. The noble Lord could reasonable sense to me. It has been a matter of lively not reasonably expect me to be able to say that. I have debate in other countries, such as in the Bundestag, no idea, as there are major issues of a geopolitical, but that is the answer that I have to his question. political and economic nature lying ahead for the organisation of a financial structure for the eurozone, Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, surely the and none of us can be dead certain how these things Minister must agree that when a loan is not repaid it will turn out. What one can say is that this is a move in becomes a commitment? the direction of trying to stabilise the eurozone, which the Government believe is in the interests of the United Lord Howell of Guildford: All I can say is that this is Kingdom. The noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch how the debate has gone and these are the decisions and Lord Stoddart, took different views, but that is that have been taken by those in the eurozone, which what we believe and that is the Government’s position. does not include us, who decided to go ahead and move from the EFSM to the ESM. The noble Lord Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The Minister is confirming has a different opinion of the financial aspects and is a what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said and what I financial expert of no small degree, so he may be right. asked him in my few remarks. We are being asked to However, that is not the view taken by the German agree something when we do not know what it will be. Government or by the other Governments of the Why cannot we agree to the next phase going ahead eurozone area. and then make a final decision when we know what we My noble friend Lord Lamont also asked about the are talking about? Why cannot we do it that way competitiveness pact. I can tell him that the latest around? draft of the pact makes it clear that: “The Pact will fully respect the integrity of the Single Market”. Lord Howell of Guildford: Perhaps the noble Lord I am then advised that non-eurozone countries—such has not understood. That is exactly what your Lordships as us, among others—have been invited to join the are being asked to do—to go ahead with the next pact and that we are assessing whether we should do phase. The Motion is required under the Lisbon treaty so. I add that many of these points tonight point in the legislation; there will be a full debate on the new same direction and that we are really getting into the primary legislation, which we will start debating tomorrow. issues which we will be discussing on the new EU Bill This is the next phase. The alternative is obviously to tomorrow, when we shall have its Second Reading. stand pat and do nothing, which the Government believe very strongly would be a serious and damaging Lord Liddle: The noble Lord said that the Government step, which might lead, although I cannot guarantee were still considering whether to join the competitiveness it, to very serious damage for this country. So it seems pact. Is that the position: that this matter is still open? right to take the next step forward. That is what both Houses of Parliament have been asked to do in order Lord Howell of Guildford: That is different from that the Prime Minister can take the necessary measures what the noble Lord said, so he is not quite right that at the European Council later this week. Noble Lords that is the position. I was going on to say that under are quite right—I said next week but I meant this the provisions of the EU Bill, which has its Second week. Reading tomorrow, any question of a movement of One or two of the points that have been raised are competence or powers from the UK to the European complex and important. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, Union arising from any of these things is subject to referred to the excellent Select Committee report which the most rigorous procedures—in many cases, a confirmed a number of the points that I have made, referendum procedure but certainly an Act of primary including the very important one that Article 122(2), legislation—which make it more or less impossible for 545 European Council Decision[LORDS] European Council Decision 546

[LORD HOWELL OF GUILDFORD] any other ratchet procedures or any other treaty-change them to be, as it were, slipped by or to be involved in procedures proposed in future by the European Union any kind of competence creep. That is the position in or even by the British Government. answer to my noble friend Lord Lamont. The noble Lord asked what we are getting in exchange. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, took a familiar In my opening remarks I covered the two considerable position and did not think that we should be propping successes that the Prime Minister secured, one of up the eurozone at all. I admire his concern for the which, I have said repeatedly, is that we are getting out German taxpayer, as he is clearly worried about our from under the EFSM liability. So we got something German friends and the amount of tax that they in exchange. might have to pay if liabilities arise. He asked if we Is a stable eurozone really in our interests? The were setting up a transfer union. My judgment—this noble Lord did not think that it was, but of course is from outside because we are not a member—would markets think that it is. When the eurozone has run be that the eurozone members are not setting up a into major troubles in the recent past and when measures transfer union because that would require a far bigger have been taken to try to address the troubles of the budget at the centre than anything that operates under future, one can see the markets reflecting precisely the present European Union organisation and rules. I those trends: they go down if they feel that the eurozone think that the answer is no, but really that is a question is in deep trouble and go upwards, or strengthen, when that was posed by German Bundestag Members and they see some kind of efforts being made to stabilise it. answered by the German Government. Markets think that it is in our interests, even if the noble Lord does not. 9pm The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, came back to the My noble friend Lord Newby was worried, as was issue of loss of influence. We dealt with participation the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about our role in the in the future design of the ESM. The noble Lord, eurozone and whether it was becoming progressively Lord Newby, also took the view that we are somehow weaker. I have described the conditions under which marginal. This is a very familiar theme. I always think we will have a perfectly straightforward role in the that there is an element of defeatism in it. It implies design of the future ESM. I have to take a stand on that unless we go along with the mob, move with the the whole question of whether, as we stand outside the crowd and are tucked into the system, we will somehow eurozone system, we are really weakening ourselves lose influence. Past experience over many years and and putting ourselves in a disadvantageous position, future prospects in the totally new international landscape as the noble Lord insists. I am not a rugby player but do not point in that direction. It portrays a yesterday quite often standing outside the scrum places you in a view of how blocs such as the European Union or the much better position than being in the middle of it. Atlantic community, or superpowers such as America, That is a much bigger issue that we will debate operated in the 20th century. We are not in that under the EU Bill: whether we are, as many experts century any more; we are not within that distribution assert, somehow marginal to the development of the of power. Different modalities apply and we are in a European Union generally and of the eurozone or different paradigm. I shall argue that in much more whether in fact we are one of the most active and detail when we come to the EU Bill tomorrow, in influential players in the whole system by virtue of our Committee and on Report. I have dealt with all the excellent positioning. We shall talk about that during issues, although certainly not to the satisfaction of all. the whole process of the European Union Bill, and I would rather leave that bigger debate for tomorrow. It is there, though, behind all these issues. Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I want the eurozone to The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether, if succeed. That is why I was particularly concerned we join the eurozone, we will be part of the ESM. The about the structure of the ESM, as agreed last weekend. answer is yes—if we were to join the eurozone. However, I asked several rather technical questions about that. I there is no proposition or intention under this Government am content if the noble Lord does not feel that it is to do so, so that is the country of hypothesis in a very appropriate to answer those questions this evening, big way.It is not going to happen under this Government. but I wonder if he would undertake to write to me and We are not going to join the eurozone. answer them. The noble Lord talked about the passerelle procedure, as did the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It is perfectly Lord Howell of Guildford: I will undertake to write correct that at the time of the Lisbon treaty—I cannot if I can get hold of the propositions that the noble deny the fact that he remembers it well—I stood on Lord is asking about. If he is asking me to describe the Benches opposite saying that I did not like the exactly how the ESM will work, I cannot yet do so smell of it. Times changes, though, and here we are because it has not been designed. We are taking a step with the situation with which we are presented: a towards the point where design of the ESM can begin. proposition comes forward that does not technically The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would or indeed actually involve the United Kingdom, and rather we did not take that step forward. However, the the passerelle procedure is used. He will learn, and I noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who is extremely expert in am sure that this will be to his satisfaction in the days this field, and his party want this to go ahead. We ahead, that under the new EU Bill very rigorous should take this first step. I know I will not be able to controls are going to be applied where there is any satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, in describing the suggestion of a movement of power or competence exact design of the ESM system because the mechanism from the UK to the EU under the passerelle procedure, is under construction. 547 European Council Decision[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 548

The noble Lord also had some fun—it was rather One can see that there could be some sense in allowing enjoyable—by asking how we could hold two views for such possibilities but I wonder how carefully the that he believed to be contradictory. One is that the Government have thought this provision through. The ESM would directly benefit the UK or, to put it foot and mouth epidemic ran for some considerable negatively, that failure to go ahead with the ESM time and it was possible for the Government to react would greatly damage the UK. At the same time, we in the way that they did in postponing the local were not involved in it. The remark of, I think, an elections in that year. However, could other disasters American philosopher passed through my mind: the be anticipated so that the Prime Minister would know mark of an intelligent mind is to be able to hold two that he needed to call a general election earlier than contradictory thoughts at the same time. It may be the prescribed date or, indeed, later? Might not the that it is the mark of an intelligent Government to do power to call a general election two months earlier be the same. It is of course possible to argue, as I have open to abuse? I am not suggesting that this Government this evening and I stand by it, that standing in the way would abuse it but we are legislating for the indefinite of this next step is standing in the way of a step that future. may lead to better things and greater stability for the A Government might anticipate disastrous figures eurozone. We judge, contrary to the views of the noble that were about to be published. I seem to remember Lord, Lord Stoddart, that this is an improvement and that Harold Wilson was of the view that he lost the is good for the British economy, British prosperity and election in June 1970 because there were bad trade the British people. figures—something to do with airplanes, if I remember That is not the same as saying that we are involved aright. Indeed, this Government might anticipate that in the powers, competencies and arrangements of the some terrible figures might come out on unemployment ESM. We are not. We have been in the EFSM and we or they might anticipate that there was going to be a were liable. We will cease to be liable in the future, major social protest, as is due to occur next Saturday. once we can get this system in place. The first step is As time goes on and the Government pursue their now required and it is one that the Prime Minister deflationary and contractionary policies more and wishes to take, quite rightly, in the interests of this more ruthlessly, who is to say what protests may not nation at the European Council meeting at the end of emerge? Therefore, the Government might think that this week. it was not expedient to hold an election when they There will be, I repeat, a second opportunity to were liable to encounter such expressions of public debate this treaty change during ratification, in line opinion and might contrive an excuse to get the election with the provisions of the EU Bill once it becomes law. in just a bit ahead of the unfortunate event that they Your Lordships will be addressing their minds to it at anticipate. Might not the power to defer the general Second Reading tomorrow. Under the EU Bill, all election by up to two months equally be capable of treaty changes require primary legislation to be ratified, abuse? A crisis might comprise the governing parties so this is not the end of the matter by any means. It is doing badly in the opinion polls and the turkeys a start and it is a good start—the right start in the wanting to postpone Christmas. interests of this nation. Should not the clause be amended? If the Government have a majority in both Houses, I worry that they will Motion agreed. very easily secure their majority for the order to bring the election forward or to postpone it. We need to tighten up these provisions. I suggest that we should Fixed-term Parliaments Bill take out entirely the provision for the Prime Minister Committee (2nd Day) (Continued) to bring the general election forward by two months. Amendments 22 and 23 would do that. We should 9.10 pm remove that temptation to manipulate the arrangements. We should also tighten up the drafting to specify the Amendment 18 kind of circumstances that would constitute a genuine crisis and justify the postponement of the election by a Moved by Lord Howarth of Newport couple of months—perhaps as a result of an epidemic, 18: Clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (5) a natural disaster or the outbreak of war; although our warrior Prime Minister might be tempted to declare Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, Amendment 18 another no-fly zone over Brussels to attract the Eurosceptic would remove the flexibility for the Prime Minister to vote and achieve some kind of Falklands effect. You have the general election up to two months earlier or never know. two months later than the five-year term. Amendments 22 Amendment 24, in the name of the noble Lord, and 23 in my name would delete just the power to call Lord Norton of Louth, indeed attempts to address the general election two months earlier. this problem. I suspect that his amendment is not I thought it was important that we should have the stringent enough. It is expressed with a high level of opportunity to scrutinise this provision. In the Explanatory generalisation and may need to be amplified and Notes, the Government explain that they have put this expressed in greater detail. The Liberal Democrat in, amendment, Amendment 25, also seeks to address “to accommodate short term crises or other conditions which this problem, but would drag in the Speaker and might make it inappropriate to hold the election on the scheduled require a super-majority of two-thirds. Those would date, for example, a repeat of the foot and mouth crisis which led certainly be safeguards against abuse, but there are to the postponement of the local elections in 2001”. other difficulties with that. The Government’s amendment, 549 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 550

[LORD HOWARTH OF NEWPORT] The Elections Act 2001 was enacted in order to Amendment 26, states that the Prime Minister must delay the local elections of that year because of the give reasons when he lays the order, but that would foot and mouth crisis. During Second Reading of the add nothing in practice. The Prime Minister is hardly Bill, I said that we needed to generate clear criteria going to lay the order and say to Parliament, “I am that would justify the postponement of elections. I not going to tell you why”. advanced four criteria that must be met in order for These provisions need further thought and tightening Parliament to postpone an election. First, there must up. If the Government cannot satisfy the House today, be a clear and recognised national crisis. Secondly, we may need to revisit this issue on Report. I beg to there must be a situation that affects the capacity to move. conduct the election. Thirdly, there must be an agreement between the parties that there is a case for delay. Finally, there must be proper parliamentary debate. The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Although there may be a case for speed, it should not Fookes): Perhaps I may point out that if the amendment be at the expense of parliamentary scrutiny. All four were to be agreed, I could not then call Amendments 20 conditions were met in wartime and in 2001. to 24, by reason of pre-emption. Those criteria should apply to any attempt to postpone elections. I appreciate that in the context of this Bill, 9.15 pm the period involved is short. It is not equivalent to Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I added my name what was undertaken in wartime, although it is on a to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, par with the situation in 2001. In the war and the foot to remove the words “earlier or” in order to press the and mouth crisis, elections were postponed through Government as to the circumstances they believed primary legislation. Here, provision is made for a could possibly arise that would make it necessary to postponement through secondary legislation. That will bring forward a general election by up to two months. be debated, but it is not on a par with what is possible I can understand delaying an election, for reasons that with a Bill. If subsection (5) is to remain, any exercise I shall come on to, but I am not sure to what extent of the power to postpone an election must be on the one could anticipate a situation, presumably a crisis, basis of the criteria that I detailed. that would justify an early election. There may be such My amendment provides that: circumstances and, if there are, it would be helpful to “The Prime Minister shall only lay an order … when he … is hear from the Minister as to what they are. satisfied that there is a situation that renders holding an election”, However, I wish to devote my principal comments within the set term, to Amendment 24, to which the noble Lord, Lord “impractical or injurious to the economic, social or public health Howarth, referred, which stands in my name. The of the nation or a part thereof”. amendment deals with an important point of principle The Government’s Amendment 26 provides that the that distinguishes it from the rest of the Bill. Under Prime Minister must state his reasons for proposing a the Parliament Act 1911, the maximum duration of a change of polling day when laying a draft order before Parliament is set at five years. Within that period, the Parliament. However, it leaves open the possibility, Prime Minister may exercise his discretion to advise alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, of the the monarch to dissolve Parliament, or he may be Prime Minister proffering a reason that is politically forced to resign or request a Dissolution in the event acceptable to a government majority but that does not of the House of Commons passing a vote of no meet what I regard as the necessary criteria for taking confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. The principal such a serious step. purpose of the Bill is to remove the Prime Minister’s I suspect that the Minister will remind us, as he did discretion within that five-year period. As the law earlier, that at the moment there may be more than stands, it is not within the Prime Minister’s discretion five years between general elections. I appreciate that to advise Her Majesty to extend the life of a Parliament two months may not seem an exceptional period of beyond five years. An extension requires an Act of time; but eight weeks can make a significant difference Parliament, and such an extension has been treated as to electoral fortunes, and a fundamental issue of principle exceptional. That is why this Bill is subject to the is engaged by this provision. That is why I regard my Parliament Act, and falls into that category because of amendment as necessary if subsection (5) is to remain the provisions of subsection (5). The only occasions in the Bill. I appreciate and support government on which extensions have been made by statute have Amendment 26, but I consider it necessary but not been during wartime. During the Second World War, sufficient. More stringent constraints must be built in parliamentary elections were postponed on an annual to the Bill. I believe that the choice is either to accept basis by a Prolongation of Parliament Act. Amendment 24 or to omit subsection (5). The Bill Subsection (5) thus engages an important principle cannot remain as presently worded. that is not engaged by the rest of the Bill. Whether or not we have a flexible or semi-fixed maximum term is not relevant to the issue raised here. The question is Lord Rennard: My Lords, I will speak first in support whether we should permit the term itself to be breached. of the principle behind Amendments 22 and 23, tabled The importance of the principle is in effect conceded by my noble friend Lord Norton and by the noble by the Government in Amendment 26. That recognises Lord, Lord Rooker, who is not with us this evening. that the Prime Minister must make clear the reasons The amendments deal exclusively with the power of for seeking to change the date of the election. My the Prime Minister to bring forward the date of the amendment seeks to define the reasons. general election by two months. I speak on the basis 551 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 552 that I have yet to hear any substantive or convincing think that noble Lords will be very attracted to one reason for giving this power to a Prime Minister in a option or the other. I also believe that many of us will context in which we are supposed to be taking away agree that the potential prime ministerial power to from the Prime Minister the power to determine the bring forward an election by two months should simply date of a general election. not remain in the Bill. I cannot see how one could anticipate unforeseen In conclusion, it seems that there is a fundamental and extraordinary circumstances that will occur in flaw in the logic of this part of the Bill in relation to two months’ time, and thereby justify bringing forward varying the date of elections. I say that because it an election by two months in order to avoid the makes no provision for varying the fixed date of the unforeseen and extraordinary event. It was said that local council elections. As we are legislating for general Nancy Reagan used her knowledge of astrology to elections to be held in the first week of May, and as influence the timing of some of President Reagan’s council elections every year in much of the country are decisions; I do not believe that our constitutional held on the first Thursday in May, if it were necessary principles should be based on star gazing and prophecies for whatever reason to vary the date of the general about future disasters. If we can foresee such an event election, surely it would be equally necessary to vary and there are extraordinary reasons for bringing forward the date of the local council elections. There are of an election by two months, there are procedures in the course provisions to vary the date of the Scottish Bill that will let Parliament decide to do that. I believe Parliament or Welsh Assembly elections but only by fundamentally that the power to bring forward an one month. Therefore, why should the Westminster election by two months, if it is necessary, should lie general election be varied by perhaps two months with Parliament and not with the Prime Minister, and when elections in Scotland or Wales can be varied by that a change to the five-year rule should be made only only one month? when there is a transparent and justifiable reason that can be properly debated and considered in Parliament. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I commend the noble I recognise that there is a much stronger case for Lord, Lord Rennard, for very effectively pointing out saying that it may sometimes be necessary to postpone one of the problems of this Bill. Can he also contemplate an election by two months, as effectively happened in the position that would exist with elections to this 2001 with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Chamber? Would they be on a fixed-term basis? Would Therefore, I am not convinced that it is right to remove they all be on the same day? Could they be moved, and completely the flexibility for a two-month delay, as on what basis would they be moved? Would it be two proposed in Amendment 18 by the noble Lord, Lord weeks or two months forward or two months later? Howarth. Would that not be an additional complication? With my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Marks, I have suggested in Amendment 25 that a two-month Lord Rennard: My Lords, I have absolutely no delay, if necessary, should be subject to a two-thirds doubt that that precise matter will be the subject of majority in the House of Commons and a majority in considerable scrutiny during the passage of the Lords this place. We believe that that brings in sufficient reform Bill in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft safeguards to prevent a Prime Minister abusing his Bill and in the Joint Committee of both Houses. power, which is the principal intention in the Bill. However, for the moment we are dealing with the We note that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is legislation as it is, and legislation at the moment attempting in Amendment 24, as he has just said, to provides for council elections to be held on the first put a legal restriction on the use of the Prime Minister’s Thursday in May every year. Therefore, it seems quite power to vary polling day to situations where it would illogical for the Government to argue that we may be impossible to hold an election because it would be, need to vary the date of the general election and to “impractical or injurious to the economic, social or public health give exclusive power to the Prime Minister to vary the of the nation or a part thereof”. date of a general election by two months when the However, it seems to me that we might get into a very council elections will not be varied except, as in 2001, lengthy and quite detailed legal argument about what by primary legislation. The Government accept that constitutes such circumstances. In our opinion, it is primary legislation can vary the date of the council better to leave to Parliament’s discretion the question elections. Therefore, primary legislation could, if necessary, of what circumstances are appropriate. I am confident vary the polling date of the general election. that such support would have been forthcoming in the The Bill could provide for a more sensible mechanism case of a big national crisis, such as the foot and for varying the polling day in general elections by mouth epidemic of 2001, and I hope that during the requiring any such variation to have a two-thirds passage of this Bill the Government will be able to majority in the House of Commons and a majority in accept that principle. this place. To my mind, it is better to subject the power in Clause 1 to vary polling day to a political restriction, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The noble Lord, for requiring political consensus, than to a potential legal whom I have great respect, having known him for a argument that may leave polling day to be decided in long time, makes a very good point. However, I was the courts rather than in Parliament. I accept that the trying to make the point that, by legislating piecemeal question of whether Amendment 24 or Amendment 25 on these constitutional matters, a lot of problems are provides the best safeguard against the misuse of building up, just as he has described, and those problems power to vary polling day is a matter of debate, but I are going to apply a fortiori—I am not sure whether 553 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 554

[LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK] that he made that point so clearly and forcefully. Of that is exactly the right term—or almost ad infinitum course, we shall not be voting on this tonight but I when we come to legislate for House of Lords reform. hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace Does that not point to the fact that it is very unwise to of Tankerness will be able to give us a very positive introduce constitutional legislation in this piecemeal and encouraging reply. He is a man of infinite resource manner? and he is always genial and helpful to the House, but if he could not give us a real promise on this point of 9.30 pm significant change to the current wording in the Bill, then I think on Report there would be amendments Lord Rennard: My Lords, not long ago the noble which many of us would feel obliged to support. Lord argued quite passionately that it was too much for your Lordships to consider together the two items of the voting system for Westminster and constituency Lord Desai: My Lords, I have already raised my boundaries. If he is now suggesting that the alternative worries about the extension power that a Prime Minister to piecemeal legislation would have been a more has beyond five years. On this group of amendments I comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with those am aware that there is a problem, but I am not as two issues and the issues of fixed-term Parliaments worried as my noble friend Lord Howarth about the and House of Lords reform, he is rather contradicting Prime Minister’s ability to go to the country earlier the argument that he made not very long ago. than five years. I do not mind that. I very much worry about the two-month extension Lord Cormack: My Lords, I am delighted that the beyond the five years. It would be very reassuring if noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was not drawn by the the Minister took away, for example, the amendment somewhat mischievous question of the noble Lord, of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and produced a Lord Foulkes. Many of us hope that it will be a very schedule of possible circumstances. I know that nothing long time indeed before we debate elections of any is certain—there can always be the black swan which sort to the Second Chamber. When that day comes, we we cannot anticipate—but if we were told under what hope that those proposals, whatever they may be, will circumstances a Prime Minister could be permitted to be seen off. go to Parliament about a postponement, that would For the first time, I find myself almost wholly in put my mind at rest. agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in the In a sense, this power goes beyond the 1911 Act, substance of his speech proposing the amendment. As and we should take it very seriously. I calculate that, he says, it seems quite extraordinary that, in a Bill given the current date of election in the Bill, there will which is supposed to be clipping the wings of the be 61 days in the two-month delay; 61 is not a perfect Prime Minister, we should be giving the Prime Minister multiple of seven, so the Prime Minister may be such tremendous power. Unless we are to appoint a tempted to go for 63 days. One can go on like that. We soothsayer to the Prime Minister—“Beware the Ides need some idea of the circumstances in which a Prime of March”—for the life of me, I do not see that any Minister could claim. Prime Minister could conceivably be able to forecast Secondly, as the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and so accurately that he could bring forward the date of Lord Cormack, said, the provision should be brought an election by two months. As the noble Lord, Lord to both Houses of Parliament. We have a constitutional Rennard, has said and as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, position in this question, and it should not be left to and my noble friend Lord Norton have indicated, that the other place alone. I can envisage circumstances should certainly be deleted from the Bill. under which a Government with a two-thirds majority On the postponement of an election, one can could arbitrarily give themselves authority to extend understand that there could be a great national emergency the election for two months. I would be very worried or tragedy—one sincerely hopes that there will not about that. be—when it would be quite improper, totally insensitive We should have safeguards in the Bill to make sure and wrong to plough ahead with a general election on that both Houses are consulted, that we know the a specific day. I will not rehearse the sort of things that possible circumstances under which the Prime Minister could happen but we have talked about the foot and can exercise the power and that we can be certain that mouth crisis of 2001. I was one of those in the other such powers will be used only in exceptional circumstances. place who strongly supported Prime Minister Blair when he came to the House and proposed that the local elections should be postponed. That was entirely Lord Bach: That was a most interesting, if short, right. God forbid that there should be some disaster debate on an important series of points. From the like 9/11, but in such circumstances one understands Front Bench, I thank all those who have taken part that it would be right to postpone the date of an and who have drafted and spoken to their amendments. election. I will be very short. The case has been made out It is important that the spirit of the amendment of that an earlier calling of an election should not be in my noble friend Lord Norton should be taken on the Bill at all. I very much look forward to hearing the board by the Government and that there should be a noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, clear specification of the sort of circumstances. I also explaining to us the circumstances in which that might think it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, be even feasible under a fixed-term Parliament. I am has said that such a proposal should be put to and absolutely with those who have spoken on that and approved by both Houses of Parliament. I was delighted tabled amendments on it. 555 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 556

As for postponement, the Committee should be Lord, Lord Norton, might want to consider. That is grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord our position at the moment. We are slightly sceptical Rennard, and others on those Benches who have tabled that the solution has yet been found. Amendments 24 and 25. We see the strength of what How wonderful it is to see the noble Lord, Lord they argue. I just add one caveat and invite them, Rennard, in such fighting form on this Bill. We missed before we get to Report—because this is a very important that fighting quality so much in the weeks and months matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, and that we spent on the previous Bill. Keep it up. might well be divided on then—to see whether their wording is absolutely right. I am sure that they intend to. The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace In 2005, under our present system and four years of Tankerness): My Lords, I think my noble friend into a Parliament—not five years into a five-year fixed Lord Rennard, with his spirit on the previous Bill, Parliament—his Holiness the Pope died. As I understand managed to get some concessions out of the Government. it, the general election plan for a certain date was Who knows what might happen? postponed for a week because of that fact. No doubt various considerations were thought about very carefully: Before addressing the amendments that have been some people were grieving; others had things on their spoken to in this group, I shall briefly speak to mind. That was considered and made public—it was Amendment 26, which is a government amendment not hidden away by politicians as a calculation. and implements a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In common with the other amendments in this group, it concerns Lord Rennard: My Lords, in my recollection of Clause 1(5), which confers a power on the Prime 2005, the general election happened on the same day Minister to vary the date of a general election by up to as the council elections, which had been agreed and two months earlier or later by order, subject to the planned for years. There was no postponement in affirmative procedure. 2005, not even by one week. I am sure the House will be grateful to the committee for the careful scrutiny it generally gives to legislation Lord Bach: My understanding is—and if I am but has specifically given to the Bill. In its report, the factually wrong of course I apologise—that all elections committee concluded that the delegated power taken were put back one week in that year for that reason. I in Clause 1 was not inappropriate in principle and use it by way of example if it is not factually correct. recommended that, when seeking to vary the date of In other words, if something has happened that is an election under the power in Clause 1(5), a Prime important to many millions of potential voters, does it Minister must lay a statement before both Houses fall in to Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Lord, setting out the reasons for proposing the variance of Lord Norton? If it does not, should some account be the date. made for such unforeseen circumstances that might The committee itself recognised that it would be affect turnout or a number of issues? That may not be unrealistic to specify a constraint which would embrace the best example, but one can think of other examples all the possible circumstances in which it would be of the same kind. appropriate to change the polling day. Instead, this is why the committee focused on the importance of Lord Tyler: Is that not a very good argument for ensuring that each House is fully aware of the reasons adopting the solution that we are proposing that it why the Prime Minister has proposed changing the should then be a political decision and that we do not polling day. That is an approach with which the try to foresee unforeseen circumstances? I speak as Government agree. I am sure that your Lordships will somebody who fought a by-election at the height of be pleased to hear that the amendment implements the Falklands war. That was unforeseen, but I did not the committee’s recommendation and provides that a think that that was an improper occasion to hold an statement must be laid before both Houses of Parliament election. What was significant about 2001 and foot setting out the reasons for proposing a change to the and mouth was that it was impractical to ask people to date of a scheduled general election. I certainly urge go to the poll in large areas of the country, including your Lordships to accept this amendment when the my own. That was what was particular about those time comes. circumstances. Therefore, I think the solution that we are proposing from these Benches is preferable. A 9.45 pm political consensus across the two Houses of Parliament When the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, moved his is preferable to trying to write in advance circumstances amendment, he said, absolutely properly, that the powers that are by nature unforeseen. in the Bill are important and that it is important in turn that they are scrutinised. His amendment would Lord Bach: The Committee will see the powerful omit the order-making power from Clause 1(5), which nature of the argument the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, allows for a Prime Minister to vary the date of a scheduled makes, but whether that absolutely precludes some general election. The noble Lord clearly considers that amendment of the type that the noble Lord, Lord in spite of the Delegated Powers Committee’s conclusion Norton, has put before the Committee tonight, I am that the power was not inappropriate in principle, he is not so certain. To have both would be a kind of double probing whether it is desirable to have this order-making of lock that would not exist if we just relied on power at all. I will set out to noble Lords why the Parliament in this instance. There may be other instances Government consider it proper and necessary to have that are not covered by Amendment 24 that the noble such a power. 557 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 558

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] I hope that the amendment that the Government have I do not think there is any doubt that the expectation tabled will help to reassure noble Lords about the is that Parliaments should last only five years and that circumstances in which the power could be used. elections will happen on the first Thursday in May but, as has been alluded to in the debate, there can be I do not think that Amendment 20, in the name of short-term crises that make it impracticable to hold an the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was spoken to. election on that date. The outbreak of foot and mouth Amendments 22 and 23, in the names of the disease in 2001 is the example that is very often given, noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Howarth, and my when it was necessary to delay the local elections in noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, was spoken to England, Wales and Northern Ireland that were scheduled my noble friend Lord Norton and supported by my to take place in May. De facto it delayed the general noble friend Lord Rennard. The amendments would election, although the fact that we were not up against alter the power in Clause 1 so that an order to vary the the quinquennium meant that there was no need for date of election could be made only to defer an any legislation; the Prime Minister simply delayed a election and not to bring it forward. There was clearly date that had been widely expected. Foot and mouth a deferral in the foot and mouth example, but it is obviously could not have been foreseen. not inconceivable that a general election might need Clause 1(5) provides that the Prime Minister will be to be brought forward if we had prior warning of a able to alter the date of a general election to a day that significant event of national importance, during which is no more than two months earlier or later. Crucially, time it would not be sensible to hold a general election. this can be done only by an order that requires the My noble friend Lord Rennard pressed me on this affirmative resolution of both Houses. In that respect, at Second Reading and I wholly acknowledge that I I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack, have yet to come up with a credible event—although who emphasised the importance of both Houses being I could think of some incredible ones—that would involved. If, however, your Lordships accept the trigger this power. Nevertheless, a power such as this is Government’s amendment in this group, the Prime to deal with crisis contingencies and, very often, that Minister will also be obliged to lay a statement before would be in the very circumstances that you cannot both Houses setting out the reasons for proposing the foresee—perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, variance of the date. Without this power, primary a “black swan” event. I would wager a bet that if these legislation would have to be passed, as indeed happened amendments were carried and the “earlier or” was with the local elections in 2001, if the date of the deleted, at some stage in the next 15 to 20 years an scheduled election had to be moved. event would happen to make one say, “If only that had Noble Lords might well ask why it would not be stayed in”. more appropriate for primary legislation to be taken It is sensible to put in the same principle of flexibility forward in these circumstances. Th54e difficulty with that exists with regard to the devolved institutions. primary legislation is that it could move the date of a Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that that is scheduled election in an emergency. Provided that it counterbalanced with safeguards—the time limit on had the consent of your Lordships’ House, it could the power, the requirement to provide reasons and the move such an election by more than two months. The agreement not just of the other place but of your fact that we are talking about a situation in which we Lordships’ House. If this amendment should be agreed, are up against only the fixed term of five years means it is true that a scenario could arise where it is accepted that we do not think it appropriate to bring about that the election has to be brought forward. Obviously, circumstances in which primary legislation could be under the powers in Clause 2, it would be possible for brought forward that would take the lifetime of the the House of Commons to resolve, with a two-thirds Parliament more than two months beyond the five majority, to dissolve early. My concern about that is years. Therefore we see a limited order-making power that it would not involve your Lordships’ House. We that requires the approval of both Houses as appropriate are trying to make an arrangement that would involve in these circumstances. both Houses. In this Bill we are setting out procedures It is also important to note that the power might that we hope will become an established part of our well have to be used at very short notice, when even an constitutional framework. emergency Bill might not be possible. If we are to establish fixed terms, it is right that we put into place However, I would say to noble Lords who have procedures that can be used to permit a very modest spoken about this that I am prepared to go away and degree of flexibility, in the same way that procedures consider whether I could bring forward concrete examples were put into legislation for the Scottish Parliament, as to where the power to have an earlier election might the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, be appropriate. In turn, I would ask your Lordships although those Parliaments do not determine that who support this to consider whether, given the safeguards themselves. In the case of the Scottish Parliament it is and the fact that very often the unforeseen does happen— the Presiding Officer, and in the case of the Welsh the so-called “black swan” event—any damage is done Assembly it is the Secretary of State for Wales. I by having this provision in the Bill and whether it may cannot immediately remember the position in Northern prove to be useful in the event of an unforeseen Ireland, but the matter is not in the hands of its circumstance. I certainly am willing to consider this parliament. further. It is important to emphasise that we are proposing Amendment 24, in the name of my noble friend not a wide-ranging Henry VIII-type of order-making Lord Norton of Louth, indicates that the Prime Minister power but a power that is very limited. As I have said, could not lay an order to vary the date of a scheduled 559 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 560 general election by up to two months earlier or later Lord Norton of Louth: That is why the amendment unless he is satisfied that there is a situation that says “impractical or”, not “impractical and”. renders holding a scheduled general election, “impractical or injurious to the economic, social or public health of the nation or a part thereof”. Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, it still refers to the fact of the holding of the election being, I fully acknowledge the point made by my noble friend that this is an important clause. Its constitutional “impractical or injurious to the economic, social or public health significance is certainly not lost on the Government or of the nation”, on your Lordships’ House. It could extend the length as opposed to external circumstances that, while not of the Parliament beyond the quinquennium and, being injurious to the election, certainly could make it hence, this Bill would not be subject to the Parliament impractical to hold it. However, I do not think that my Act. However, in the light of the amendment that noble friend’s amendment covers the circumstances the Government have tabled, I question whether where the external event could make it difficult actually Amendment 24 is necessary. to hold the election. I think that that is more than just a technical point, quite apart from what criteria the I share the recollection of my noble friend Lord Prime Minister would use and what the threshold Rennard: I do not think that the date of the 2005 would be. election was changed. But, putting that to one side, I agree that the example given by the noble Lord, Lord I have raised these points because they go beyond Bach, of the death of Pope John Paul II—an event of normal technical difficulties. They also illustrate the international significance—is the kind of event that difficulties that arise when you devise formulas to try could in certain circumstances prompt a change. We to address situations that, by their very nature, are are talking about a period of up to two months, but it unforeseeable. The technical matters point to the general does not need to be as long as two months. It may be principle agreed by your Lordships’ Delegated Powers thought fitting to change the date by one or two weeks and Regulatory Reform Committee. It said that, in these circumstances. That would not necessarily fall “it would be unrealistic to specify in the Bill a constraint which into any of the categories set out by my noble friend. would embrace all of the possible circumstances in which it might Equally, it is almost inevitable that the statement that seem appropriate to change a polling day”. the Prime Minister would have to make to set out his Problems arise when you start specifying circumstances. reasons for moving a general election would in all You can bet your life that a circumstance will come likelihood reflect the kind of concerns that my noble along that is glaringly obvious to everyone but was not friend sets out in his amendment. covered when the legislation was going through. The greatest safeguard on the use of the power is the fact I do not usually take drafting points at this stage that it must be approved by both Houses and must be but in this situation my concern goes further than just accompanied by a statement setting out the reason for a drafting point. It may be something on which my seeking to vary the date of the general election. noble friend would wish to reflect; I would be happy to discuss it. This goes beyond a simple drafting issue That brings me to Amendment 25, tabled in the because it begs the basic question as to the basis on names of my noble friends Lord Rennard, Lord Tyler which a Prime Minister would come to the view that and Lord Marks. It provides that an order made by holding a scheduled general election would be, the Prime Minister under Clause 1(5) would have to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the other place. “impractical or injurious to the economic, social or public health It also provides a role for the Speaker to certify of the nation or a part thereof”. whether the order had been approved by a Division What criteria would the Prime Minister be expected to and had the support of at least two-thirds of all MPs. I bear in mind? What is the threshold for whether a recognise the logic behind the amendment, as the Bill scheduled election should be held or not? Could it provides that a vote on an early Dissolution of the result in a threshold that is too low because it would other place would require the support of at least enable an election to be moved because of some sort two-thirds of all MPs. That measure is designed to of administrative problem? Is it a decision that conceivably ensure that an early general election can take place could be subject to judicial review? where there is cross-party consensus, a point emphasised The other point is that the test is that of whether by my noble friend. However, the order-making power holding the election is injurious. It is hard to see where in Clause 1(5) is somewhat different from the power we might be trying to grapple with injury caused by an for early Dissolution. Unlike the power to force an election as opposed to circumstances that would cause early Dissolution, it is a power to vary a scheduled difficulty for the election. The foot and mouth outbreak general election and is limited in terms of time. Also, was such an example. The election was not going to my noble friend may have sought to put in something cause any difficulty, but it would have been difficult to to avoid abuse, but I believe that the circumstances are hold the election because in certain parts of the country such that that would not occur, given the safeguards the regulations in place meant that people could not in place. go out and canvass. I would ask my noble friend to However, I am grateful to my noble friend for reflect on whether the criteria may have got things the clarifying that this House would still have a role to wrong way around, or whether this may be a “both/and” play. As I understood it from some of the things that point in that there may be circumstances in which he said at Second Reading, it was not clear whether holding the election could be damaging but there may this House would still have a role to play. Given the also be circumstances that make holding an election comments that have been made by a number of noble difficult. Lords, that is important. In the light of that, I want to 561 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 562

[LORD WALLACE OF SALTAIRE] The noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Tyler and consider the amendment. I will consider, too, the fact Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, like the noble that this provision would again involve the Speaker of Lord, Lord Norton, commendably went further than I the other place. That has raised issues where it appears had done and tried to propose a constructive solution. later in the Bill, so I would want to reflect before Rather than trying to find wording that would encompass agreeing to something that again would give the Speaker even in fairly general terms all the possible contingencies a role. It is something that I would want to have an that ought to trigger such a power, they suggested a opportunity to discuss with the authorities in the procedural device that, without attempting to anticipate other place. Therefore I am certainly willing to consider all the varieties of emergency that could occur, would it in the light of his assurance that this House would respond adequately to an emergency of that kind if it still have a role to play and what the implications occurred. There is a lot of merit in that approach. might be for the other place. For reasons with which I shall not detain the The other point that my noble friend made was on Committee by explaining now, I have my worries about local elections. There might be circumstances where it bringing in the Speaker on the lines that the noble would be desirable to move a general election date but Lords’ amendment proposes, but we shall talk about a where local elections could continue as scheduled. Speaker’s certificate when we come to other amendments However, and more important, this Bill focuses solely in due course. However, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on what is strictly necessary to establish fixed-term was quite right to insist on the desirability of consistency Parliaments. To try to introduce other issues could in the legislation that determines this option not only lead to complications. for the Parliament of the UK but also for the Scottish These are important issues and I hope that I have Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and local government. given assurances that the Government’s mind is not My noble friend Lord Foulkes rightly drew attention closed to them. I believe that there are safeguards in to the possibility that, if we had an elected House of the Bill, which I hope will be added to by noble Lords Lords, we would need equally to provide for such agreeing to government Amendment 26. In the mean powers to apply in relation to elections to it. He rightly time, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, to withdraw warned us once again of the dangers of engaging in his amendment. piecemeal and ill prepared legislation on the constitution. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his 10 pm exceptionally full and reflective response to the debate. He has brought forward government Amendment 26, Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, this has been which simply requires that, if the Prime Minister a thoughtful debate about what has been recognised proposes an order to alter the date of the election in on all sides of the Chamber as a genuine conundrum. an emergency situation, he must set out his reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, drew our attention to That is not sufficient. I know that the Government the irony of a Bill that is intended, as he put it, to clip were encouraged to bring forward a remedy in these the wings of the Prime Minister actually proposing terms by the Select Committee on the Constitution, to confer on him the extraordinary additional power but this debate has shown that this Committee of the of extending the life of a Parliament beyond the five Whole House is not satisfied that simply requiring years that have been enshrined in legislation since the Prime Minister to give reasons meets the needs of 1911. That alone should give us pause and make us the case. think pretty carefully about what we are doing. We all recognise that there is a significant decision to be I am grateful for the willingness that the Minister made. I think that we all recognise, too, that there is has signified to think further about this issue and a problem; there cannot be doubt about that. My about how we can come to a better solution to the amendment is intended only as a probing amendment. problem. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my When I tabled an amendment proposing that amendment. subsection (5) be deleted, it was certainly not because I thought that this was a problem that we should ignore. We need if we can to provide satisfactorily for Amendment 18 withdrawn. the contingencies that noble Lords have suggested could occur. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, with his Amendments 19 to 25 not moved. characteristic lucidity and incisiveness, set out the criteria that he thought the House should have in mind as we Amendment 26 frame this legislation. He desires to be rigorous. I suggest to him, as I did in my opening remarks, that Moved by Lord Wallace of Tankerness his wording needs to be tightened up and made more 26: Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert— rigorous, and not just in the technical drafting sense to “( ) The draft laid before Parliament must be accompanied by which the Minister drew our attention. The noble a statement setting out the Prime Minister’s reasons for proposing Lord suggested that the choice was either to adopt the the change in the polling day.” wording of his Amendment 24, perhaps strengthened, or to drop subsection (5), as Amendment 18 requires, and simply remove altogether from the legislation the Amendment 26 agreed. power to bring forward or defer a general election in an emergency. Clause 1, as amended, agreed. 563 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 564

Clause 2 : Early parliamentary general elections Lord Norton of Louth: I choose my words carefully and refer solely to national legislatures. If we are to Amendment 27 have two mechanisms for triggering an election, then we could usefully explore the alternatives to what it Moved by Lord Norton of Louth proposed. Do we need the subsection at all? In evidence 27: Clause 2, page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (1) to the Constitution Committee, David Howarth noted that if there is all-party agreement that a situation has Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, Amendment 27 arisen necessitating an early election, then it would be seeks to leave out subsection (1) of Clause 2. My relatively straightforward to pass an amending Bill. If purpose is to tease out the reasons for this provision. the measure was introduced for political advantage Although this is termed the Fixed-term Parliaments then this would, he argued, deny the measure the Bill, it is not a measure providing for fixed-term necessary broad support and it would make slow Parliaments. It stipulates a fixed term unless certain progress in the Lords. conditions are met. There may be deviations from the set term of five years under Clause 1(5) and Clause 2(1) Adopting such an approach would avoid the problems and (2). The Bill thus seeks to move from a flexible to associated with the artificial hurdle created by the a semi-flexible or, if one prefers, a semi-fixed Parliament subsection. My view is that the most appropriate way in terms of its duration within a maximum life of five to proceed, if we wish to remove the Prime Minister’s years. discretion as to when an election is to be held, is to The Bill proposes two safety valve mechanisms provide that an early election is possible only if the enabling a parliamentary election to be held prematurely. House of Commons passes a vote of no confidence One is the Dissolution Motion introduced by Clause 2(1) in the Government or if the Government resign and and the other is the vote of confidence covered in there is no prospect of another Government being Clause 2(2). In evidence to the Constitution Committee, formed. My amendments 35 and 38 seek to achieve Professor Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution that and I shall develop the arguments for those shortly. Unit at University College London, said that he was, They overcome the problem I have identified with the “slightly puzzled why the Government sees the need for a dual Bill in respect of the Government resigning without threshold”. having been defeated on a vote of confidence. Although the committee concluded that it was appropriate I know that the principal argument for this to include two different safety mechanisms, I wish to provision is that it is in the coalition agreement. The probe why we need this particular mechanism. problem with that assertion is that the provision is not I know the argument that this provision ensures in the coalition agreement. The agreement said that a that the House, in the event of some unbreakable binding Motion would be introduced in the House of deadlock, does not have to engineer a vote of no Commons and a Bill brought forward providing for a confidence in order to ensure an early election. However, Dissolution Motion to be passed if 55 per cent of MPs the problem with this provision is that it sets the bar at voted for it. In the event, there has been no binding a high level and, as a result, the Bill fails to deal with Motion and the extraordinary majority to pass a the situation where there has been a breakdown within Dissolution Motion is now two-thirds of all MPs. We the Government but the Opposition are not prepared know from David Laws’s book, 22 Days in May, to support a Dissolution Motion. The Opposition may which has already been quite extensively quoted from, not be able to muster enough votes to pass a Motion that the figure of 55 per cent was the product of of no confidence, but they may find it politically political calculation. It is a threshold utilised by no advantageous not to vote for a Dissolution. If the other national legislature. Given that, the case for the Government resign without either a no confidence subsection must rest on more than its inclusion in the Motion or a Dissolution Motion having been passed, coalition agreement. I am not convinced that the case then the 14-day trigger is not engaged. We could have for it relative to the alternatives is compelling. I beg to a period of instability, with no Government but with move. no election in prospect either. I appreciate the situation is unlikely but, as long as it is not impossible, we need to consider it. Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, I also put my I am not clear why there needs to be the two-thirds name to the amendment to remove the two-thirds hurdle in the context of the Bill. I am familiar with the provision. This was an improvisation when the coalition’s fact that some legislatures have a two-thirds provision, original proposal—that 55 per cent of Members of but to what extent does this exist in the context of a Parliament should be able to require an early general dual as opposed to a single safety valve? Is it not the election—was greeted with widespread derision and, case that the two-thirds provision in other legislatures indeed, anger. It was noted, even before Mr Laws applies more often than not in respect of a confidence underlined it in his book, that the Conservatives and Motion? Perhaps my noble and learned friend can tell Liberal Democrats together had 56 per cent of the us which other national legislatures utilise an extraordinary votes in the House of Commons. The Liberal Democrats majority for the passage of a Dissolution Motion. and Labour had less than 55 per cent, and so this deal would have guaranteed that Parliament could only be Lord Empey: I am grateful to the noble Lord. If my dissolved at the wish of both partners in the Conservative/ memory serves me correctly, the Northern Ireland Liberal Democrat coalition. They could not get away Assembly needs 70 per cent of its Members to vote to with that, so they built in the two-thirds requirement. bring the life of the Assembly to a conclusion, albeit They certainly did so with a continuing view of protecting subject to the assent of the Secretary of State. their hold on office. 565 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 566

[LORD HOWARTH OF NEWPORT] not entirely unimaginable that there could be a landslide This two-thirds figure has not been adequately election that would produce a majority in excess of considered. It is argued in its support that no post-war two-thirds. Noble Lords will recall that in October Government have commanded two-thirds of the votes 1993, Kim Campbell, the Prime Minister of Canada of the House of Commons, but it has also been noted and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, called that the National Government of 1931 did command an election. Her party suffered the most extraordinary two-thirds of the votes of the House of Commons. We defeat; previously, it had held 169 seats and after the cannot rule out the possibility that there could be election it held only two seats. She resigned and Jean another landslide general election. It is admittedly Chrétien of the Liberals became Prime Minister and unlikely that one party could secure quite such a large was then in office for 10 years. You never know what proportion of seats in the House of Commons, but it will happen and it is entirely possible that, if the is not inconceivable. coalition Government govern wisely and well and if What is more reasonable to anticipate is that a new we have a statesmanlike Budget on Wednesday and the coalition could be formed. Perhaps this coalition could land flows with milk and honey and there is a sustained seduce other minority parties to join it. It would need boom and crime disappears from our country and the only another 10 per cent of Members of Parliament to lion lies down with the lamb, after some years of this get to the magic figure required. This is a constitutional benign state of affairs the people of this country innovation of major significance that is quite unheralded, would be so reconciled to coalition government that unconsulted upon and undebated by academics and they would enthusiastically vote in huge numbers for the public. It is true that under its own standing orders its recreation following the next election and that they the House of Commons does in certain situations would win a landslide victory. I do not think that it is stipulate that certain numbers of Members of Parliament going to happen, but we cannot rule out any even must vote, for example, for a quorum or a closure. So implausible contingency. However, dream as noble it is not entirely novel as a principle of Commons Lords opposite might, it is very unlikely that they procedure, but it is certainly novel constitutionally. If would get beyond 75 per cent, as happened in Canada. a super-majority is felt to be preferable, why does it So I think that that would be a safe limit to set. have to be provided for in legislation? Could it not be More realistically, there might be another coalition provided for in the Standing Orders of the House of in the future that is composed of bigger parties or of Commons? Indeed, why should we not accept—this is more parties so that its votes in the House of Commons after all the status quo—that a simple majority for an would surpass the two-thirds. So I think that 75 per early general election would be sufficient in the House cent might be safer, and, of course, if the general of Commons? mood of the House of Commons was that it was time for a general election, then a 75 per cent vote would 10.15 pm indeed be obtainable. If it is convenient to the House, I shall speak to Amendments 28 and 29 in the course of the same Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have slightly lost the remarks, although if noble Lords wish those amendments noble Lord’s argument. Is he arguing in favour of a to be debated in the separate group as is set down on bare majority or a 75 per cent majority? the list, I shall defer to the wishes of the House. However, the subject is sufficiently germane. Lord Howarth of Newport: I have two amendments, Amendment 28 would allow a general election to to enable the House to consider both possibilities. I occur on 51 per cent of the vote in the House of am not sure that we need to legislate at all. We could Commons—a majority of one. That is the status quo, simply proceed on the traditional basis that a 51 per although I am not aware that events have ever worked cent vote was required. However, in the context of a out like that. Of course, we would have to fear that a Bill creating fixed-term Parliaments, we perhaps do provision of that kind would be open to abuse by the have to specify in law that a majority of one would be coalition. However, I was always happy to trust the sufficient to trigger an early general election. I am not Prime Minister’s word. When he declared last May very happy with that, but I am not very happy with the that he would not seek a solution before May 2015, two-thirds requirement, for the reasons that I have I had no reason whatever to doubt his sincerity or indicated. Therefore, I have suggested that the House integrity. That seemed quite sufficient; it was not might like to consider a different figure to provide a actually necessary to legislate. We did not even need a safeguard against exploitation of this particular escape- binding resolution, let alone the contrivance of a hatch which would give the Government of the day an requirement of a two-thirds majority. opportunity to escape from the ordinary provisions of Amendment 29 introduces another variant to assist the legislation on fixed-term Parliaments. For these noble Lords, I hope, to think through the implications reasons, I have tabled the amendments. I beg to move. of the Bill. It replaces the two-thirds requirement for an early Dissolution with a 75 per cent requirement. If Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again, Mr Laws there is to be a super-majority, should it not be big explains how we got here. But when you see how we enough to ensure that even after a landslide victory got here, it is difficult to understand why we are here. the governing party could not in due course when it Perhaps I may read a paragraph that has not yet been suited it seek an early election and obviate the purpose quoted: of this fixed-term Parliaments legislation to remove “There was a debate for thirty minutes or so on arrangements the power of the Prime Minister to determine the date for dissolving a parliament before the end of its five-year term. of the election in his own and his party’s interests? It is This was an issue which we raised, but William Hague soon 567 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 568 realised that the main risk lay with the Conservatives. Without a A second and separate point that the Minister super-majority for dissolution being required, the smaller party needs to deal with is: what happens when the Government could leave the coalition and dissolve parliament almost at will”. resign and no one else wants to form a Government? He continues: On the basis of the Bill, it appears—again, the noble “Huhne originally suggested that there should be a 66% Lord, Lord Norton, has made this point and I have threshold for dissolving parliament before its full term was up, in not heard an answer to it—that you have no Government line with the situation in Scotland. George Osborne said he and no Dissolution. I would be grateful to know what thought that 66% was rather high and that 55% or 60% was closer happens to our nation’s Government at that point. to the mark. After some work on Ed Llewelyn’s calculator, and consideration of by-election risks, it was decided that a 55% vote of MPs would be required to provide for a dissolution. This was just greater than the combined opposition and Lib Dem parliamentary Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I thank my parties, thereby safeguarding the Conservative position”. noble friend Lord Norton for opening up the debates It is absolutely plain from what Laws is saying there on this clause, which raises important issues regarding that they were trying to guard against Dissolution, the mechanisms that would trigger an early election or including a no-confidence vote. There is no doubt indeed a change of Government, and I am grateful to about that, because he says: all noble Lords who have taken part. It is important to recognise that there are two mechanisms that can “Without a super-majority for dissolution being required, the trigger an early election: either a Dissolution on a smaller party could leave the coalition and dissolve parliament almost at will”. 66 per cent majority—or, more accurately, with two-thirds of Members voting for it—or a vote of no confidence That must be referring to a vote of no confidence. It is passed by a simple majority and, after 14 days, no therefore plain from Laws’ book that it was envisaged Government having a vote of confidence. They are that you could not get rid of the Government with an distinctive. ordinary vote of no confidence and that the only provision intended to allow for an early end—that is, I cannot endorse the speculative analysis by the before the five years—was if the super-majority was noble and learned Lord Falconer. He admitted that he satisfied, and that could not be delivered by the Lib was speculating— Dems coalescing with Labour. I think that that was to be put into a binding Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not speculating. resolution, whatever that may mean, in the House of This is what a person who was there at the negotiations Commons. Pressure was then placed on the Government said. For the Minister to describe this analysis as in the public debate which followed, and they changed speculative when he is not offering an alternative this in two respects: the figure of 56 per cent became explanation is wholly unfair. two-thirds, and they agreed to a vote of no confidence as a way of getting rid of the Government. Why are they both there? Which two separate situations are Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, it will be they trying to cover? It looks as though the coalition obvious that the proposals in the Bill are not the ones agreed to the 56 per cent to prevent the possibility of described in the book. The noble and learned Lord being voted out on a vote of no confidence. I am asks us why we have the proposals that we do, and pretty sure that that is what happened, but they were obviously he was speculating about why they are there. pushed off it by public pressure and had to agree to a If I were presenting to the House a Bill that had a vote of no confidence. They retained the super-majority 55 per cent majority and that was it, that would be a as a fig leaf in order to try to give some justification reasonable basis on which to say, “This is how we for it. That is what Mr Laws’ book is suggesting. arrived at 55 per cent”. Clearly, that is not what is Could the Minister say whether I am wrong about that proposed in the Bill, and I will address that in the analysis? No other factual analysis is being offered for course of my response to this debate. why we are in the extraordinarily unusual position where both a simple majority and a super-majority Subsection (1) provides the House of Commons can get rid of the Government by way of a vote in the with a new power to vote for Dissolution following a House of Commons. It looks as if the analysis that process that I believe is robust and transparent. My I have given is the reason. noble friend has indicated that he has his own further amendments about what might follow, including the We are entitled to an explanation for this. The point point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who Falconer, about what would happen in the event of a is respected throughout the House as a constitutional Prime Minister resigning, and we will address these expert, is significant: no other national parliament has when we come to my noble friend’s amendments. this extraordinary provision in it. If it is in there only because it was part of a negotiation that then got shot The point is that if there is a clear consensus that away by public pressure, why are the Government there should be an early general election, it would be keeping it in? It is important that the noble and nonsensical to force the other place to engineer a vote learned Lord gives us some information about it, of no confidence, particularly where confidence in the because at the moment the only explanation on the Government is not necessarily the issue and may not record is the one that I have given. It is discreditable be what is driving the need for an early election. We for the Government to reform our constitution simply believe that it would not be right or proper to conjure on the basis that an idea that was floated in the up a vote of no confidence in these circumstances. coalition agreement got shot away but they kept it in, That is why the Bill seeks to prevent that with our in order to preserve I am not sure what. proposal for a two-thirds vote. 569 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 570

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] and a new Government was formed under Ramsay In the case of Germany, Governments have in the MacDonald. In 1979, as has often been mentioned in past had to engineer no-confidence votes even where our debates on this Bill, when Mr James Callaghan’s there was a consensus in favour of an early general Government lost a vote of no confidence, he then election, because there was no provision in its constitution proceeded to seek a Dissolution and an election was held. analogous to the procedure for a Dissolution vote in When we come to the next part of this clause, that this Bill. At that time there was no alternative to is what we will be discussing. We will no doubt debate engineering a no-confidence vote. what constitutes a no-confidence vote. We seek to reflect what has been the constitutional position of the 10.30 pm outcome of a no-confidence vote on a simple majority. My noble friend reasonably asked about other nations. Equally, we took the view that there were circumstances I spotted what he said about national parliaments, as in which it would be more appropriate, if there was a opposed to the devolved Parliament and Assemblies, consensus that a Parliament should be brought to an which have a provision that is very similar to what is end, to have a trigger mechanism that was more than a set out here. I am unable to answer now but if I get simple majority, such as a two-thirds majority. information I will certainly write to him. The point was made in an earlier debate by the noble Lord, Lord Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I apologise for not having Howarth, that it is sometimes difficult to translate been here earlier but I have heard everything since my what happens in other countries to what happens here. noble friend Lord Norton spoke. The Minister referred This is where we reach a position that answers the to 1979. Would he describe for the benefit of the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer Committee how the provisions of this legislation would of Thoroton, about why we have two mechanisms. He apply to the conditions of 1979? If there had been a is right about why the coalition agreement mentioned vote of no confidence in Mr Callaghan’s Government 55 per cent. under the provisions of this Bill, would he have been able to wait a fortnight, give jobs to the Irish nationalists Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand what the and re-form his Government, thereby avoiding an Minister said earlier. Is he now saying that this is a election? product not of the coalition agreement but of some other arrangement? Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Hypothetically, if he was able to do that, it could have happened. In a Parliament with less than six months to go, it is highly Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I might be missing unlikely that that would have happened. There has something somewhere. The coalition agreement referred to be a political reality. It was quite clear that that to the 55 per cent that the noble and learned Lord has Government had run their course and there was a described. At the same time, he gave a plug to my right general view that an election was needed. Therefore, honourable friend’s book, for which I am sure he is I think it highly unlikely that a new Government very grateful. However, that is not in the Bill; I am would have been formed, and no new Government describing what is in the Bill. Of course it is a product having received a vote of confidence within 14 days of the coalition. It is a coalition Bill that is before your there would have been a Dissolution. That is one set of Lordships’ House. circumstances. However, there ought not to be a vote I recall sitting in this House during Questions and of no confidence if that is not the reason behind the listening to many noble Lords on all sides of the consensus that Parliament needs to come to an end House criticise that 55 per cent provision. The noble and for there to be a general election. Rather than and learned Lord nods his head in agreement. It was a contrive a vote of no confidence, one should have it as provision that received considerable criticism. There a solution but with the threshold set at such a level was a criticism that it meant a vote that could lead to a that it cannot easily be obtained by a single party for Dissolution. People asked about votes of no confidence. political advantage. At the same time, there was the issue of whether there In much of the noble and learned Lord’s speech at ought to be a higher majority to trigger a Dissolution Second Reading, his main agony about this Bill was automatically. The two mechanisms that provide the that it would be possible for a Government to abuse trigger in the Bill as it stands address the criticisms the procedure and seek a Dissolution, which would that were made. I make no apology for saying that the defeat the whole purpose of having fixed-term Parliaments. Government listened to the criticisms that were made, Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate that the tried to take them on board and came forward with Dissolution should be set at a level which has not been what is proposed here. It may be unique to the United achieved by any governing party since the Second Kingdom but it addresses some of the concerns. World War. I fully accept that we departed from the We will come later to the issue of no-confidence 55 per cent figure because that was clearly not going votes but at present this House and—it is fair to say anywhere. It was roundly criticised in this House and, —other commentators and people in the other place indeed, in other places. As I say, I make no apology for said that there was an important point about the having listened to that criticism, reflected on it and vote of no confidence on a simple majority having come forward with a proposal which still maintains a consequence. The Government listened to that. that there should be a vote which could trigger a Historically, there have been two possible outcomes. Dissolution, but one where the percentage figure is In 1924, when there was a vote of no confidence in much higher to the extent that it would not be achieved Mr Baldwin’s Government, Mr Baldwin resigned by one party alone. That is why that first trigger 571 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 572 mechanism—the subject matter of this amendment—is the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, would preserve the there. The two-thirds majority that is proposed is the Executive’s ability to decide when a Parliament was same majority required for a Dissolution vote in the dissolved, by providing that a Dissolution motion devolved legislatures, as set out in the relevant legislation. could be passed by a simple majority. At the other end of the scale, the noble Lord Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am sorry to interrupt my suggests a majority of 75 per cent of Members who noble and learned friend but I think that three times vote. Again, it is not an unreasonable proposition, but now he has referred to a two-thirds majority. However, I believe that, on balance, the threshold of two-thirds it is not a two-thirds majority because that would be strikes the right balance in providing a safeguard two-thirds of the votes cast in the Division. This is against abuse of the power, while ensuring the effectiveness two-thirds of the number of Members, including vacant of the Bill’s provisions. This Parliament passed similar seats. Will he set the record straight? provisions in relation to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have sought to explain why there are two mechanisms Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am happy to do so. I and how they are different. I indicated clearly that the think that I corrected myself the first time I got it 55 per cent originally proposed did not find favour. wrong. I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding Therefore, it was only right and proper that the me of that. As I say, since the Second World War no Government listened to those views, and we have Government have been able to command two-thirds come forward with two trigger mechanisms—one for of all the seats. This means that Parliament can choose when there should be an election, if there is a consensus, to dissolve itself but Government cannot dissolve and another for when the Government have lost the Parliament for their own political advantage. confidence of the House of Commons. They are different The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked why the issues that are dealt with separately. Interestingly, the two-thirds requirement should not be set out in Standing Constitution Committee, whatever other concerns it Orders rather than in statute. The two-thirds requirement may have had, thought that the Government’s proposals is set out in legislation as opposed to Standing Orders on the two trigger mechanisms were an appropriate so that any change to the requirement would have to way forward. In those circumstances, I ask my noble be made by fresh primary legislation, which would friend to withdraw the amendment. require the consent of both Houses of Parliament, whereas Standing Orders of the other place would require only one House of Parliament to determine Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to that and probably could be amended or revoked by a noble Lords who have spoken in the debate which, single simple majority in the other place, and therefore despite the late hour, has been quite useful and has could defeat the purpose of the measure. It is better to teased out the reasons for the provision. Perhaps I have the two-thirds vote set out in statute, which may begin by briefly correcting my noble and learned means that it has to be changed by statute. That would friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness on his reference to involve this House rather than the other place simply the German example. He said that the Government determining it by means of its own Standing Orders. It there had engineered a vote of no confidence in themselves. is not appropriate that a significant detail of reform In fact, they engineered defeat of a motion of confidence, affecting Parliament as a whole with implications for which is not the same thing and is relevant to discussions our prerogative should be amended by Standing Orders that we will have later on how one defines a vote of of one House of Parliament. confidence. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, very helpfully Reference was made earlier to the Constitutional indicated that he would speak to his Amendments 28 Reform and Governance Act and pre-legislative scrutiny. and 29 at the same time. The first of those would omit I served on the Joint Committee on the draft the requirement for a two-thirds majority while the Constitutional Renewal Bill, as it then was. The title second would increase the figure to three-quarters of was later changed because I and others pointed out all MPs voting in favour of the measure instead of that nothing was being renewed by the Bill. My point two-thirds. The reason why we are opposed to the is that the Joint Committee met for two hours twice a simple majority—it would be a majority in that case—for week for nearly three months. The more we discuss the Dissolution is because it would undermine one of this Bill, the more convinced I am that it would have the purposes of the Bill: namely, establishing a fixed benefited from extensive pre-legislative scrutiny. The term and removing the Executive’s ability to decide problem with much of the Bill is that it is not grounded when Parliament should be dissolved. Noble Lords in evidence. It is not exceptional in that respect but, as may recall that at Second Reading mention was made we have heard, this part of the Bill was the product of of the late Lord Holme of Cheltenham and his analysis negotiations by politicians who are not necessarily of arrangements whereby the Prime Minister can choose noted for their knowledge of our constitutional the timing of the election. Lord Holme described a arrangements. general election as, Subsection (1) is highly unusual—certainly in “a race in which the Prime Minister is allowed to approach it with comparative perspective. My noble and learned friend his running shoes in one hand and his starting pistol in the said that he would write to me with details of where other”.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 1007.] this provision applies elsewhere. It may be helpful if I I have reflected why he would not have his running tell him that I can save him a letter. The noble and shoes on, but he would certainly have the starting learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, thought pistol in his hands. Unfortunately, Amendment 28 of that we were unique in this provision. That is not 573 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 574

[LORD NORTON OF LOUTH] that in practice cross-party support would be required, quite the case. Lithuania, Mongolia, Tajikistan and given that no Parliament in recent history has enjoyed Turkmenistan have a similar provision. I wanted such a majority. However, in relation to Clause 2(2), confirmation that the Government were unaware of the criticism made by the noble and learned Lord is that. technically accurate. At Second Reading, the response was made that any Prime Minister engineering a vote Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise of no confidence in his or her Government in such a for misleading the House in that respect, and I accept Machiavellian way would be punished at the ballot the helpful correction of the noble Lord, Lord Norton box. However, I and others suggested that the problem of Louth. might need to be addressed at the later stages of the Bill. The need to address the point made by the noble and learned Lord is given added weight by the fact Lord Norton of Louth: I am grateful to the noble that, in Germany, Governments have resorted to the and learned Lord; I am glad he found that helpful, device of engineering defeat on votes of confidence, as although my remarks were directed far more at the the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, correctly Government and to put the issue in comparative pointed out. It was done by Chancellor Brandt in perspective. It is that sort of information from which 1972, by Chancellor Kohl in 1982 and by Chancellor the Government should have started when looking Schroeder as recently as 2005. elsewhere to draw up the provisions. In terms of being unique, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, The way in which Amendment 30 addresses the will not be surprised to know that if his three-quarters problem is simple. By requiring that a Motion of no proposal were to be implemented, it would render us confidence under Clause 2(2) must be tabled by the unique. leader of the Opposition, the mischief is effectively addressed. The position of the leader of the Opposition However, my point is that measures of this type is constitutionally recognised. He or she would inevitably need to be better grounded in thorough evidence be—and historically invariably has been—the person before we proceed with them. This provision needs who would move a genuine Motion of no confidence. scrutiny that deserves far more consideration than we It follows that requiring that he or she be the mover of are able to give it this evening, and we may wish to such a Motion if it is to have effect is a simple way to reflect on that between now and Report. For the achieve the intention of the Bill. It would also provide moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. a certain symmetry. Given that the purpose of the Bill is to remove from the Prime Minister the power to call Amendment 27 withdrawn. an election at a time of his or her choosing, who better to be responsible for the trigger for an early election Amendments 28 and 29 not moved. when all-party consensus is absent than a Member of the House who seeks to replace him or her as Prime Minister? Amendment 30 I note that Amendment 33, proposed by the noble Moved by Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is to the same 30: Clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out “of” and insert “tabled effect. It gives me great confidence in our amendments by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons that this is the first time since I joined your Lordships’ declaring that the House of Commons has” House that I have had the pleasure of expressing agreement with the noble Lord in a debate on a 10.45 pm constitutional matter. Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, the I will make one final point. A further effect of effect of the amendments in this group, tabled by my Amendments 30 and 31 is that they contain a simple noble friends Lord Rennard and Lord Tyler, and by definition of a vote of no confidence. A Motion of no me, is to refine Clause 2(2), which covers the provision confidence would be a Motion declaring that the for an early dissolution in the event of a vote of no House of Commons had no confidence in Her Majesty’s confidence on a simple majority followed by a period Government. That would mean that, once any vote of 14 days in which no Government is formed that went against the Government on an issue that would enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. or might be seen as a confidence issue, the leader of the Opposition would have a chance to table a Motion At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, of no confidence in those terms. If it were passed, the Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in what he described Speaker’s certificate would follow and the 14-day period sotto voce a moment ago as one of his “many agonies”, provided for by Clause 2(2) would be triggered. If the made the point that under the clause it would be Motion failed, that consequence would not follow. theoretically possible for a Prime Minister to engineer That arrangement would avoid doubt or argument, a vote of no confidence in his or her Government by and it would avoid the need for any complication in his or her side so as to secure an early dissolution at a the definition of what did and what did not constitute time of his or her choosing. That would deprive the a vote of no confidence. I beg to move. Bill of its intended very beneficial effect of removing from the Prime Minister precisely that power. Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, as the noble The criticism cannot be made of Clause 2(1), which Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has just requires a two-thirds majority of all the seats in the noted, it is remarkable that I have tabled an amendment House of Commons to trigger an early dissolution, so which seeks to achieve exactly the same purpose as the 575 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 576 amendments in this group tabled by the Liberal Democrat win an overall majority in an early election and, noble Lords. It is a nice example of how our parliamentary therefore, it would be less tempting for the Prime dialectic can be fruitful. The public notice all this Minister to contrive an early general election. However, adversarialism—they notice that we are always disagreeing we are where we are. The Liberal Democrats failed to with each other. However, if one takes a longer view, secure a referendum on proportional representation we find that all this debate and argument tends to and we have a referendum on the alternative vote only. produce a new consensus. Until recently, the Liberal I hear different views as to what the alternative vote Democrats wanted immediately to move on to discover might produce: some say that it is a majoritarian new truths and interest us in new suggestions. They system of election that tends to reinforce the swing have been the grit in the oyster, endlessly introducing and others say that it is more likely that the alternative new ideas into our public debates. I hope that they will vote will produce an endless series of coalitions. Whatever be able to continue to do so now that they have joined the outcome proves to be in practice, with that electoral the governmental establishment. We shall see. system it would be more important to have the safeguard which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others have We have heard a certain amount about Germany proposed. I hope we do not have AV and some of us from the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and will do our best to ensure that we do not have it. Lord Marks. I think that it was in 1983, although the noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested it was 1982—the I see one significant argument against these noble Lord, Lord Norton, will tell us who is right—that amendments. We might have a situation, which the Chancellor Kohl deliberately contrived to defeat a noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, has adumbrated Motion of confidence in his Government. As I understand and which the Government have already played out, in it, the reason was that he wanted an election because which the Government lost a vote on a key Bill, they he had come to power in the previous year by means were incapable, for whatever conjunction of circumstances, of a parliamentary vote and not by means of popular of governing effectively, and their majority had fallen endorsement at the election. He lacked a popular as in 1951 or 1996, but the Opposition reckoned that it mandate and he wanted one. I do not think that he was in their political interest to defer the election to was punished at the ballot box, so I am not sure that allow the Government to continue to stew in their the safeguard that the Government have suggested political juice for a little longer. In that situation they exists against the cynical use of the no-confidence would not want to table a Motion of no confidence provisions in the Bill to contrive an early election by just yet. Of course, that would be bad for the country. an unscrupulous Prime Minister would necessarily These are all hypothetical possibilities. It is very work. On that occasion at least, Chancellor Kohl did difficult for us to provide for every contingency that not suffer at the election. might arise, but I think it would be sensible to incorporate It is at least a possibility that Mr Cameron, too, not an amendment of the kind moved by the noble Lord having won an election and feeling that he lacks popular and of the kind that my Amendment 33 provides. endorsement, might, if he thought that he had an opportunity to do better in an early general election, 11 pm be very tempted to go for that. It is hard to foresee that but who knows? If the 14-day provision that we are Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am not sure about to debate on another amendment were taken whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of out, it would be even more important to guard against Thoroton, will speak to Amendment 40, but perhaps the Prime Minister being able to contrive a vote of no I might anticipate that one as well. I suspect that my confidence. If immediately following a vote of no noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness confidence he could go to the country, it would be that will be advising the House against these amendments much more attractive to him. and I thought that at this hour of the night I might bring him some joy by saying that I shall agree with I think we can see why the Liberal Democrats are him in doing so. keen for the Bill to be amended to provide that only the leader of the Opposition can table a Motion of no I shall quickly adumbrate the problems that I foresee confidence. It is, sadly, because they do not trust with the amendments. I understand what they seek to their coalition partners and the Prime Minister. They achieve, but I have concerns. I understand the motivation worry that, as the Liberal Democrats become more for limiting the Motion of no confidence to be moved unpopular—and we will perhaps see evidence of that by the Leader of the Opposition. As we have heard, it after the local government elections and in the AV is to limit the Government so that they do not engineer referendum—and as the cuts, which those who voted a vote of no confidence. However, it does exclude for them did not expect them to support, start to bite, other Members of the House from the opportunity to Mr Cameron may ditch them and cut and run. Unless move a vote of no confidence. The circumstances in this amendment is in the Bill, the supermajority lock which that is likely to happen may be exceptional but may not do the trick for them and keep the Deputy in historical terms they are not unknown. One of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in office by postponing most important debates that took place in wartime the evil day when he has to face the electors of Sheffield happened on a vote of no confidence which was not and the Liberal Democrats have to face the electors of moved by the Leader of the Opposition. It is unusual the United Kingdom. but I am not sure that should be excluded. I have certain concerns about the way in which that amendment I note that an amendment of this kind would be less is drawn. I can see the reasons for trying to prevent the necessary if we were to have proportional representation Government doing that, but there are problems if it is as that would make it less likely that any party would solely confined to the Leader of the Opposition. 577 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 578

[LORD NORTON OF LOUTH] vote of no confidence from the Opposition—which, as My second problem with the amendment is the way I understand it, is the view of the noble Lord, Lord in which it is drawn in relation to what constitutes a Marks—but that there should be a general election, or Motion of no confidence. It limits it to the House a 14-day delay, which we shall debate later. passing a Motion expressing no confidence in the Government. That narrows it in relation to what we Those two examples would not be covered by the presently understand to be a confidence Motion in the proposal of the noble, Lord Marks, and therefore lead House of Commons and it narrows it unduly. Therefore, to dealing, on one view, with the collusion argument because of Amendment 50, to which we shall come on but strengthen the other risk in the Bill, which is that a the next day in Committee, I would prefer to go down Government who genuinely have lost the confidence the route that seeks to preserve, as far as possible, our of the Commons are able to stay in power. Just as the existing understanding of what constitutes a vote of noble, Lord Marks, gets one piece of the wallpaper on confidence rather than narrowing it in the way that the the wall, another falls off. amendment proposes. On my amendment, I could not have asked for I now anticipate Amendment 40, to which the more from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. It noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will speak. I is my view that in relation to a vote of no confidence, suspect that, had my noble friend Lord Cormack been there is no possible mechanism one could adopt which here, he might have accused the noble and learned would allow anyone to go behind the motivation of Lord of tabling it on a mischievous basis. I am sure why a particular group of people voted in favour. That that the noble and learned Lord will say that it is is an impossible task. It is like the vote of 100 in the serious. Perhaps we could compromise and say that it Commons voting for an all-elected House of Lords. It is serious but mischievous. The amendment states has been suggested that that was a vote in order for that, there not to be an all-elected House of Lords. But one “a vote of no confidence cannot be a valid mechanism to precipitate cannot go behind the vote; one must accept it at face an early general election if the Speaker of the House of Commons value. has reason to believe that it is called with the support or collusion of the Government and issues a certificate to that effect”. I tabled the amendment simply to illustrate the correctness of the conclusion of the committee on I have problems with the existing wording of the which the noble, Lord Norton of Louth, sits, chaired Bill in relation to the Speaker. As drafted, it could by my noble friend Lady Jay, that there is no ability to draw the Speaker into political controversy in issuing control a vote of confidence and that a Prime Minister a certificate. If he can be drawn into controversy with a majority can, if he or she wishes, engineer a under the Bill as presently drawn, he would be drawn situation where he or she loses a vote that is a vote of into it in spades under Amendment 40. We can just no confidence, even if not so called. imagine what would happen if the Speaker said, “No, no, the House has passed a Motion of no confidence, I have a third objection to the amendment tabled by but I think that the Government has probably colluded the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Is it such a bad thing in it”. One can imagine the uproar that would be that, had these provisions been in place, it would have caused. The noble and learned Lord may be proposing been open to, for example, Mr Heath to go to the his amendment to tease out that very fact; we shall country not by engineering in some deceitful way but hear shortly. On the face of it, as it is worded, his by simply saying that he thought that the Government amendment exacerbates what I consider to be an needed to have the confidence of the people to go on existing problem in the Bill. Although I appreciate the with the particular stance they were taking? He would reasons behind the amendments relating to the Leader therefore have put down a Motion of confidence in his of the Opposition and votes of confidence, I cannot own Government with a view to there being an election. support them and will be quite happy to support my Is that a bad thing? What is the view of the Government noble and learned friend in resisting them. on that? These are probing amendments in Committee. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, covers one situation, but it leaves a lot of others Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, on the amendment uncovered. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of the noble, Lord Marks, I agree with the noble Lord, of Louth. Lord Norton of Louth. It fails to deal with two particular problems. First, when a Government lose a I tabled my amendment simply to establish the vote that is obviously a vote of confidence—if the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. You Government had been defeated on the Motion authorising cannot go behind people’s motivation, which means the use of force in Iraq, that would plainly have been a that the Select Committee is probably right. The vote of confidence—it would be wholly wrong if there Government of the day can always have an election then had to be a vote of no confidence thereafter. whenever they want on a majority of one. Do the Equally, there have been votes which the Government Government think that is necessarily a bad thing? lose, for example, the vote on Maastricht in 1992, which they then followed—in my view, entirely correctly Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, this is the —with a Motion tabled by the Prime Minister on a first of a series of groups of amendments dealing with vote of confidence in the Government. If that vote the trigger mechanism from no-confidence Motions. I had resulted in the Conservative Government being thank my noble friend who tabled this amendment defeated on the vote of confidence, which was the and noble Lords who have tabled subsequent amendments. traditional method of dealing with that, the consequence A general view has been expressed, particularly at should have been not that there then needed to be a Second Raiding, that there is some merit in having 579 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 580 certainty. A number of those who have contributed to leader of the Opposition. As noble Lords are well this debate have made the point about the potential for aware, a decision by the leader of the Opposition to abuse. support or to table a no-confidence Motion automatically As I have indicated, the Government believe that takes precedence over that tabled by any other party. the package of the two trigger mechanisms is sensible The question then is whether there is reason to and straightforward. However, I accept that there has deviate from current practice for the purposes of this been considerable interest in the handling of the legislation. I have listened carefully to what has been no-confidence Motions in particular. When the Bill said about potential abuse, but I come back to the passed through another place, there was some detailed point that it would be obvious if the Government had debate on this, but it was not amended. The more one set out to subvert the standard procedures of the other looks at it, the more one finds that perhaps the balance place. I take the view that it can in no way be excluded that has been struck in the Bill is right. However, the altogether but that there would almost certainly be function of this Chamber is to be a revising Chamber retribution by the electorate. On the other hand, the to improve legislation and I want to make it clear to electorate might decide that there was to be no retribution noble Lords that, in our deliberations on this amendment and that they fully supported the Government of the and the subsequent amendments, the Government are day—at the end of the day, the electorate are right. willing to listen carefully and to reflect on what noble Lords have to say with regard to trying to address the The no-confidence procedures in the Bill as drafted issue of certainty about what constitutes a no-confidence would be activated only if the House of Commons Motion and ways of trying to eliminate abuse. had voted to the effect that it had no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. One has to reflect that, even if It is to address certainty and to eliminate abuse that a Government tried to contrive it, if they went to the the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marks country with the Opposition saying that the House of provides that only a Motion of no confidence tabled Commons had no confidence in the Government, they by the leader of the Opposition would trigger the might have a presentational problem on their hands. procedure in Clause 2(2)—namely, the 14-day period. For the moment, I put it no higher than that. Those The amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord who think that the safeguard is meaningless are perhaps Howarth, seeks to achieve the same result. We have trying to nail down a political process with legal always been clear that this Bill is not a new constitution. certainty. I have, I hope, been quite up front in these It is intended to bring in an important provision—fixed- debates when I have said that if the Government were term Parliaments—having proper regard to existing absolutely determined to try to abuse the rules, as I constitutional arrangements and conventions. On the think the Constitution Committee itself accepted, whole, the purpose of the Bill is to replace existing although it would be possible to abuse them, there conventional democratic controls with legal controls would be consequences to that. I rather suspect that, in the context of a fixed-term Parliament. The only as the idea of a fixed-term Parliament and the rules set foolproof way in which to prevent an Executive from down by a fixed-term Parliament became more and manipulating the rules to engineer a premature general more part of what people were accustomed to, there election would be to remove those rules entirely—in would be consequences over time if it was thought other words, to provide for rigid fixed terms. The that a particular Government were trying to bend or mood of the House at Second Reading—and I have get around the rules. The political consequences would not heard anything to contradict it since—was that be more damaging. there was very little support for having such rigidity. The Bill therefore provides procedures that allow for The amendments would have certain unintended an early general election where one is clearly required. consequences. The first of these is that the proposal is All the debates that we have had in this House and the out of step with the process of rebalancing that is other place confirm that this is regarded as a necessity. going on in the other place between the Front-Benchers I think that we are in the territory of assessing whether of all parties and the Back-Benchers. My noble friend the procedures in the Bill are satisfactory, rather than Lord Norton of Louth made that point. In the past whether we should have these procedures at all. The few years, there have been a series of reforms in the purpose of these amendments is to see whether they other place that have been designed to give Back-Bench can be improved on. MPs a greater voice. Part of this involved the report by the Reform of the House of Commons Committee, It is the case that the Bill does not say who may sometimes known as the Wright committee after its table a Motion of no confidence. That concurs with chairman Dr Tony Wright, the long-standing chairman current practice. As was mentioned by my noble friend of the Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Lord Norton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord and the establishment of the Backbench Business Falconer, there is no restriction on who may table in Committee. Amendment 30 would be counter to the the House of Commons a Motion of no confidence. general trend of these reforms by allowing the As it happens, in practice, these have been tabled by no-confidence procedures in the Bill to be triggered opposition parties and almost always by the leader of only by the leader of the Opposition. the Official Opposition. The background note prepared by the Library in the other place sets out a history of The amendments would put in place a statutory confidence Motions. I am acutely aware that my noble provision that excluded the Back-Benchers and entrenched friend Lord Norton of Louth has made an in-depth the dominance of those on the Front Benches. I am academic study of confidence and no-confidence Motions. not sure that most Members of the other place would Since 1895, not a single Motion has included the necessarily welcome the inclusion of such a provision words “no confidence” other than in the name of the when we returned the Bill to them. It is interesting that 581 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 582

[LORD WALLACE OF TANKERNESS] Again, as I think was identified by my noble friend a similar amendment was tabled and debated in Lord Norton, the amendment would seem wholly Committee in the other place, but I think that it is fair undesirable because of the position in which it would to say that it did not receive a warm welcome and was place the Speaker. He would have an important role to not even pushed to a vote. The amendments also leave play under the Bill as presently drafted. But to suggest, open a number of unanswered questions, most notably in addition to that, that he would have to look at the what would happen if there had been a successful motivation of those who had pursued the Motion is of no-confidence vote in the Government but the leader a completely different order. He would have to assess of the Opposition failed to table a Motion of no whether an election had been called with the support confidence. or collusion of the Government, which would seriously Finally, Clause 2 has been drafted in a way that is risk the Speaker becoming involved in matters of sensitive to the Commons having control of its internal political controversy. He would be required to consider procedures. Only the bare essentials of the new basically what was going on behind closed doors to mechanisms have been put in place—there needs to be discover how the Government were supporting the a two-thirds vote in favour to trigger a Dissolution Motion of no confidence. How could he distinguish vote, and the 14-day period commences on the passing between genuine dissent from government Back-Benchers of a no-confidence vote—but is it right to go further or a government-led plot? I believe, and I am sure that than this? Is it right to use legislation to tell the other the House would agree, that this is a matter on which place who is permitted to table a Motion or indeed to the Speaker should be neutral. devise the precise words that should be used in a I know that the noble and learned Lord has concerns Motion for it to have legal effect? about the misuse of no-confidence Motions. As I As I said, I fully understand and indeed sympathise indicated earlier, if we can find an acceptable way of with the underlying motivation to these amendments, trying to eliminate the potential for abuse, we are and I have indicated that we are willing to consider certainly open to these suggestions. I do not believe them, but there would be serious practical problems, that this is one of the ways of doing it. But, ultimately, and indeed constitutional problems, for the role of and particularly after rules on fixed-term Parliaments Back-Benchers. The alternative of letting the Commons become part of our constitutional architecture, the develop its own practice and for the Speaker to inform idea of a Government trying to subvert the rules the outside world whether this practice has been complied for their own benefit would be seen through by the with through the Speaker’s certificate is preferable. We electorate. As I have indicated, the Government are believe that the procedures that we have put in place to willing to consider proposals to amend the procedures trigger early Dissolution are robust and transparent, on no-confidence Motions if we believe that they and I ask your Lordships to reflect on the conclusions meet the criteria of providing certainty, but not doing of the Constitution Committee on the trigger mechanisms so in a way which could lead to more unintended for an early election. The Constitution Committee did consequences. have concerns about the definition of no-confidence Motions, which we have discussed and to which we will return, but it broadly endorsed that there should Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As regards the third be two trigger mechanisms and that the sort of question—let us assume that this Bill applied and that manipulation which noble Lords are concerned about the Opposition did not support a general election—would would be seen as, the Government be willing for Heath, for example, to “an abuse of the Act’s provisions”. have a general election in those circumstances? Would they be against it? Is that an abuse? 11.15 pm The Government’s view is that the Bill steers an Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Just to be clear about appropriate line between the concerns that have been what I am being asked, as I understand it the noble expressed in this debate and those which I anticipate and learned Lord has asked me whether, in February coming from my noble friend Lord Cormack on our 1974, when Mr Heath wanted an election, if the next Committee day, when we will debate his amendment. Opposition had been against it he could have contrived It does not seek to outlaw or prescribe any form of a situation to do it. Clearly, under these circumstances, no-confidence Motion, but provides sufficient clarity it would have been possible to contrive. He might not for it to be obvious when the Government were seeking have had the election on the date on which he wanted to subvert the processes. No doubt, we will have ample it if it had had to be 14 days after he had lost a opportunity to discuss this further. confidence Motion. He may well have found in weighing Amendment 40 from the opposition Front Bench is that up whether it was the right course of action. It aimed at similar concerns about manipulation. I think may have saved him from what happened in the end. that it was proposed in the spirit of trying to tease out I believe that it would be possible but, again, it where we are on this. It would provide a further would be a matter of judgment. Indeed, the electorate condition on the circumstances in which there is to be did make a judgment at the time on a Prime Minister an early election. That further condition would be that who chose to go before his term of office was anywhere the Speaker of the House of Commons would have near complete. If he had also contrived the means of to assess whether the vote of no-confidence had been doing that, the consequences for him might well have secured with the support or collusion of the Government. been greater. That is pure speculation. We will never If it had, the Speaker would certify that fact and there know. On that basis, I ask my noble friend to withdraw could not be an early election. his amendment. 583 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 584

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, I am which there could be no doubt. It is for that reason grateful for the indications given by the Minister that that the simplicity and, I suggest, the elegance of the there will be some flexibility in consideration of how solution whereby the leader of the Opposition has that to deal with no confidence Motions. The Minister responsibility, should be accepted. should know that I and my noble friends who proposed The idea that a certificate of non-collusion should these amendments fully support the two triggers and be the way forward, as suggested in the amendment the basis on which no confidence Motions are dealt proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer with in the Bill, subject to the proposition mentioned of Thoroton, carries with it endless difficulties that at Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, make the solution unattractive. I see that the noble Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Indeed, it gave me great and learned Lord is nodding in agreement. It would pleasure to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth involve the Speaker in value judgments, which would of Newport, in relation to this amendment, but it gave be thoroughly undesirable, would be difficult to make me less pleasure to hear him suggest that the only and would require him to conduct a single-handed reason the Liberal Democrats are moving the amendment assessment of the evidence before him of collusion or is because they do not trust their Conservative colleagues non-collusion. I note that the noble and learned Lord not to rat on the coalition and go to the country. I appears to agree with that. invite noble Lords to accept that the reason for the amendment is simply to address the problem that the I urge the House in passing this Bill to have regard noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to the central mischief at which it is aimed. In so identified in the Second Reading debate, which was doing, I invite a robust answer to the question of the that the Prime Minister could technically engineer a noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about the dissolution and that that was the mischief at which conundrum facing Mr Heath in 1974. He wanted this Bill is aimed. Dissolution on the basis of testing who governed the I turn to the history of no confidence Motions. I country, the Government or the trade unions. Had he had understood from the Library note, as had my been able to get a majority, as I suspect he would have noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, done, of two-thirds—in other words, the agreement of that since 1895 all Motions of confidence or no confidence the Opposition to go to the country on that issue—that have been moved by the leader of the Opposition, or would have been all well and good. Had he been at least if not initially, then taken over by him after unable to get the agreement of the Opposition, I others had moved such Motions. The reason why that suggest that it would not have been appropriate to is an attractive proposition is that it is simple and it allow him the option of engineering a vote of no vests in the alternative Prime Minister the power to confidence in his own Government in those circumstances, move the Motion of no confidence. In tabling the because what should have happened was that either amendments as we did, my noble friends and I considered the House agreed, the Opposition agreed or the carefully the question of balance between Front-Benchers Opposition moved the Motion. and Back-Benchers in the other place, to which the In so saying, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Minister referred. However, if one does not specify that it should be for the leader of the Opposition to Amendment 30 withdrawn. move a Motion of no confidence, inevitably the field is opened in such a way as to make it possible for the Amendment 31 not moved. Prime Minister to collude with another Back-Bench Member of Parliament, not of his own party, in the moving of a Motion of no confidence. That is undesirable Amendment 32 because it increases the danger to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, originally Moved by Lord Howarth of Newport referred. 32: Clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end insert— On the question of the definition of a vote of no “( ) the Speaker of the House of Commons had in advance confidence, I accept, as I suspect do most Members of of the motion in question being debated certified that the motion was to be regarded as a motion of no the Committee, that traditionally in the House of confidence, and” Commons, Motions on issues considered to be issues of confidence may take many forms. But, at the margins, such Motions do not necessarily amount to Motions Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, this amendment of no confidence and I do not accept that the desirable deals with the requirement for the Speaker to issue a way to deal with those Motions on the margins is by certificate. This is one of the most important and requiring the Speaker to certify that they are Motions difficult issues in the Bill. I was very interested to hear of no confidence. If this Bill is enacted, we are moving the noble Lord, Lord Marks, speak thoughtfully about into a new era in this field, that of fixed-term Parliaments this problem in his concluding remarks just now. It with a statutory code for early Dissolution. It is, I seems to me, if I may venture to suggest this to the would suggest, appropriate that there should be a new Committee, quite unsuitable that we should embark procedure, a new clarity, in the statutory code on the upon this very major debate at this hour of the evening, question of votes of no confidence. In moving the but if that is its wish, I shall very briefly sketch the amendment, it seems to us that the sensible way to issue that I think we should return to—which we will proceed is for a Motion on a confidence issue that may be able to do, for example, on Amendment 51, which be at the margins or may be dubious to be followed by I have tabled as an amendment to Amendment 50 in a clear, declaratory Motion of no confidence about the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. 585 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[LORDS] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 586

[LORD HOWARTH OF NEWPORT] to require the Speaker to certify that the vote which Amendment 32 would require the Speaker to have has just taken place is a vote whereby the Government certified in advance that a Motion was to be regarded forfeit the confidence of the House of Commons and as a Motion of no confidence if it were to lead to an the Government must therefore fall and there must be early general election. The legislation requires the a general election. Speaker to issue a certificate establishing that a Motion I shall say no more about these very important of no confidence has been passed on a Division as a major issues now because it is late in the evening and precondition of Dissolution and an early general election. we will have other opportunities. They deserve to be The idea of a Speaker’s certificate was lifted from the considered by a better attended House than we have at Parliament Act 1911, which requires the Speaker to the moment, which is no reflection on the quality of certify that a Bill is a money Bill before it goes to the scrutiny of those noble Lords who are conscientiously House of Lords. That certification is of a relatively present at this late hour. I beg to move. ascertainable fact. The characteristics of a money Bill are clearly described in the preceding subsection of the Parliament Act. Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I completely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has said about The introduction of the concept of a Speaker’s the importance of this issue. It is no one’s fault, but certificate is entirely novel, I think, in the context of starting this debate at 11.28 pm is a little odd. As Motions of no confidence, and I believe that it needs the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, we shall obviously extremely careful consideration for three reasons. have to return to this when we debate both the amendment First, there is the difficulty of defining a Motion of tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack— no confidence, a Motion of confidence or vote of Amendment 50—and the amendment to Amendment 50 confidence—what exactly is the Bill talking about? tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, to leave out Secondly, through this procedure, the Speaker would subsections (3) and (4). Unless other noble Lords have be liable to be placed in extremely contentious political remarks to make, the best thing may be to move circumstances and to have to play an extremely contentious straight to the Minister and hear his response. The part in them. Thirdly, the statutory requirement for important point that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, the Speaker to issue such a certificate may lay him made about Mr Mark Harper’s comments that he open to legal challenge in the courts, either those of could envisage the Speaker certifying in advance will this country or the European Court of Justice. That is obviously have to be debated when we come to the a major hazard apprehended by the Clerk of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. House of Commons. For all these three reasons, I believe that we need to proceed with the utmost caution and that what is drafted in the Bill carries with it very Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I plan to be considerable risks. extremely brief, as I have classes to teach in Hull shortly after 9 o’clock in the morning. 11.30 pm I wish to raise one point arising from what the I would prefer frankly to lay out my arguments noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has said. I have considerable more fully when we come to Amendment 51, when I sympathy with the argument that he is developing that think the Committee expects to address these major either the Speaker’s certificate goes out of the Bill concerns about the nature of a Motion of no confidence completely or, if it stays in, it needs to be refined. He and the Speaker’s role. For now, I shall say only that was teasing out the point made by the Minister that among the reasons why I have tabled this amendment the Government would expect the Speaker to indicate is that the Minister, Mr Harper, in giving evidence to in advance whether he would certify a Motion as one the Select Committee on the Constitution, said that it of confidence. So, on the basis of that expectation, I was the Government’s view that, wish to raise this question. One could raise it on any “the Speaker would make it very clear before such a vote took serious Bill but I have used before the example of the place whether it was a vote on which he would issue his certificate”. European Communities Bill in 1972, where the Prime We need to examine that thought very carefully. Minister, Edward Heath, said, “If we lose this, the Government cannot sensibly continue”. If, in a situation There would be immense difficulties for the Speaker like that, the Speaker took a contrary view and declined in certifying in advance that a Motion was to be a vote to certify the Bill as one of confidence but the Prime of no confidence. It is plain sailing where it is a classic Minister said, “This is essential to our programme vote of no confidence, in which the expression “no and, if we are defeated, we shall resign”, what would confidence” is explicitly articulated and there is no happen? ambiguity—the House is entirely accustomed to this convention. However, it gets more difficult where the Speaker has to certify that a Government defeat on a Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I appreciate the concern major measure was, in effect, a defeat on a Motion of of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, about the lateness confidence. With defeats on the Queen’s Speech, on of the hour. I always understood that this evening’s Budget resolutions or on the Second or Third Readings proceedings were going to go late. We tried to of a Finance Bill, again the House knows where it accommodate that by finishing somewhat earlier last stands on votes of those kinds and the difficulties time. Nevertheless, it is an important point, as he would not be too great for the Speaker. However, there indicated, that there will be the opportunity at a later are other categories of potential Government defeats, stage with a subsequent amendment to perhaps explore which may be regarded as votes of confidence, where this further, including the point raised by my noble it is dangerous, unreasonable and altogether excessive friend Lord Norton of Louth. 587 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill[21 MARCH 2011] Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 588

The effect of the amendment would be to require procedural matters before it. I understand the point the Speaker to issue two certificates before an early that has been made and, clearly as I indicated in my election is triggered on account of a no-confidence introductory remarks to the previous set of amendments, vote. The clause already provides for the Speaker we will reflect on all these points. Yet we find it certifying that there has been a no-confidence Motion, difficult to accept that there should be an additional and a Motion of no confidence in the Government layer of complexity to the process. One wonders how during the ensuring 14-day period. The amendment, much time there would be to allow such a certificate to as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, would be issued if it was a pressing debate. It would be require an additional, earlier certificate issued in advance regrettable if such a debate was somewhat held up of a debate as to whether the Motion is to be regarded while the Speaker was engaged in the process of as a Motion of no confidence. considering whether a certificate should be issued and This again arises out of the concern that the House that is then done. of Commons may not always know whether it is We share the goal behind the noble Lord’s voting on a Motion of no confidence. It is highly amendment—that the Commons should be well informed unlikely that the House of Commons, in its ordinary before it votes on confidence matters. The idea of an business, would pass a resolution which was perhaps ambush is unfounded but I hear what the noble Lord contrary to a matter of policy and the wishes of the says with regard to trying to import that greater Government of the day, but a matter on which no one degree of certainty. It is an issue to which we will had ever actually thought that there was any great return, one we will certainly reflect on and one we will store set, and then at the end of the 14-day period the perhaps have a wider debate on—perhaps with more Speaker unexpectedly issues a certificate. I have heard participants—in the subsequent Amendment 51. On that concern expressed but it is not a realistic scenario. that basis, for the moment I ask the noble Lord to The point was made that my honourable friend withdraw his amendment. Perhaps when we come to Mr Mark Harper indicated that in all likelihood a the later debate, we will address the questions that my future no-confidence Motion would not only take the noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has also raised. form that it did when a Motion was last passed but also, in the event of it happening, the Speaker of the Lord Howarth of Newport: I thank both the Minister House of Commons would be able to inform Members and the Committee and beg leave to withdraw my before they vote. For example, if it was on an amendment amendment. to the Queen’s Speech, the Speaker would inform Members of the House of Commons before the vote Amendment 32 withdrawn. that, in the event of the Motion being passed, the Speaker would regard it as a no-confidence Motion Amendment 33 not moved. for the purposes of Clause 2. House resumed. That is a simple and straightforward process. The Speaker advises the House of Commons on other House adjourned at 11.39 pm.

WS 35 Written Statements[21 MARCH 2011] Written Statements WS 36

proposal to Government within the next few weeks. At Written Statements that point, we expect to make an in-principle decision about whether the organisation they are proposing to Monday 21 March 2011 establish could be the recipient of unclaimed assets from dormant accounts, subject to further development work and state aid approval. If the decision is made to Armed Forces Pay Review Body go ahead, detailed set-up work for the big society Statement bank would then be able to commence, including recruitment of its chair and board. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry By making this Statement today we want to ensure of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): My right honourable that everyone has the opportunity to feed in comments friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Liam Fox) on the development of the proposal, or on our approach has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. more generally. Separately, we are currently working to secure the state aid approvals from the European The 2011 report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Commission that would be needed in order to capitalise Body (AFPRB) has now been published. I wish to an independent big society bank with money from express my thanks to the chairman and members of dormant accounts and to provide it with the flexibility the review body for their report. I am pleased to it needs to grow the market. We are also working with confirm that the AFPRB’s recommendations are to be the Big Lottery Fund on interim arrangements that accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 will enable investments to be made as soon as dormant April 2011. accounts money becomes available in the summer, In line with the Government’s 2010 emergency Budget, using existing state aid exemptions. We will make which announced a two-year pay freeze for all public further announcements in due course. sector employees, the AFPRB basic military salary recommendations are only for those personnel earning £21,000 or less where the recommendation is for an Bill of Rights increase of £250. The AFPRB also recommended a Statement number of targeted measures, including the introduction of financial retention incentives to retain personnel essential to delivering key operational capability. The The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Government have also accepted the AFPRB McNally): My honourable friend the Minister for recommendations to increase food and some Political and Constitutional Reform (Mark Harper) accommodation charges. has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. Copies of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body The Government have established an independent report will be available in the Vote Office. commission to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights, fulfilling a commitment made in Our Programme for Government. The commission will explore a range Banks: Big Society Bank of issues surrounding human rights law in the UK and will also play an advisory role on our continuing work Statement to press for reform of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My honourable friend the The UK will be pressing for significant reform of Minister for Civil Society (Nick Hurd) has made the the European Court of Human Rights, building on following Written Ministerial Statement. the reform process under way in the lead-up to our On 14 February, the Minister for the Cabinet Office chairmanship of the Council of Europe later this year. and I published a strategy to grow the social investment We will be pressing in particular to reinforce the market, giving charities and social enterprises access principle that states rather than the European Court to new capital to help them to increase their impact. of Human Rights have the primary responsibility for The strategy explained the central role of the big protecting convention rights. society bank as a cornerstone of the market, acting as The commission will be chaired by Sir Leigh Lewis both a champion and wholesale provider of capital. KCB, a former Permanent Secretary at the Department In February we also announced that we would for Work and Pensions with a long career in public work with leading social investment experts to develop service. He will be joined on the commission by: a proposal for the establishment of the big society Jonathan Fisher QC, Martin Howe QC, Baroness bank as an independent private sector organisation. Kennedy of The Shaws QC, Lord Lester of Herne Hill Since then, we have been engaging with the social QC, Philippe Sands QC, Anthony Speaight QC, Professor investment sector, and we are pleased with the ideas Sir David Edward QC and Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky. coming forward. Today I would like to update the The terms of reference for the commission are: House on the next steps. “The Commission will investigate the creation of a UK Bill of As we announced in February, Sir Ronald Cohen, Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under former chair of the Social Investment Taskforce, and the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law, and protects and Nick O’Donohoe, former global head of research at extend our liberties. It will examine the operation and implementation JP Morgan, are taking the lead on developing a proposal of these obligations, and consider ways to promote a better for a big society bank. They are engaging with the understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties. sector, and we expect that they will present their It should provide interim advice to the Government on the WS 37 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 38 ongoing Interlaken process to reform the Strasbourg court ahead I regret to inform the House that an answer I gave of and following the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of in response to a supplementary question about nuclear Europe. It should consult, including with the public, judiciary test veterans from the honourable Member for Scunthorpe and devolved administrations and legislatures, and aim to report no later than by the end of 2012”. (Nic Dakin) during Defence Oral Questions on 31 January 2011 (Official Report, col. 573) could have been misleading. The commission members have, between them, I said: extensive legal expertise and experience, and we expect the commission to take into account a broad range of “…the courts have found there is no causal link whatever between many of the disabilities and illnesses suffered and any exposure to views as it fulfils its remit. In addition, an advisory radiation”. panel will be established to provide advice and expertise This statement could have been open to interpretation to the commission on issues arising in relation to and I wrote to the honourable Member for Scunthorpe Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The commission (Nic Dakin) in response to a letter from him to clarify will report jointly to the Deputy Prime Minister and the position on 23 February. I also mentioned this to the Secretary of State for Justice. The commission will him when we met on 1 March. The position is that the be supported in its work by a small secretariat of civil Court of Appeal judgment in the atomic veterans servants. group litigation granted the Ministry of Defence’s appeal on limitation, not on causation. However, as Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate part of this judgment, the court said that the claimants Homicide Act 2007 have produced no evidence which begins to satisfy those usual causation requirements and that the general Statement merits of the claims were extremely weak. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Crispin Blunt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. Crime: Drink and Drug Driving The Government will commence Section 2(1)(d) of Statement the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The Act, the majority of which came into force on 6 April 2008, creates an offence whereby an Earl Attlee: My right honourable friend the Secretary organisation can be found guilty of corporate of State for Transport (Philip Hammond) has made manslaughter if the way in which its activities are the following Ministerial Statement. managed or organised causes a death and this amounts I have today placed in the Library of the House the to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care to the Government’s response to a report by Sir Peter North deceased. on drink and drug driving which was published in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act makes the duty of care June 2010. This response also covers a report by the that a custody provider owes to certain persons who Transport Select Committee which was published in are detained a relevant duty of care for the purpose of December 2010. The Government’s response is available the offence. However, its implementation was delayed on the department’s website at: www.dft.gov.uk. to allow custody providers time to ensure they were compliant with the Act. Those custody providers subject The Government are committed to improving road to the Act have indicated that they are ready for this safety. It is a priority to deter driving when unfit provision to be commenced, and the Government through drugs or alcohol, and to ensure that those intend to do this by the summer. who persist in this dangerous behaviour are detected and punished effectively. We must protect law-abiding The Act allows the Secretary of State to add further road users with measures that are effective and categories of persons in custody or detention to the proportionate, concentrating on those who are a danger list of those to whom a relevant duty of care is owed to themselves and other road users, while avoiding by reason of Section 2(1)(d). The Secretary of State unnecessary social and economic impacts. intends to extend the Act to cover persons detained in Ministry of Defence service custody premises and in We are convinced that our first priority must be to UK Border Agency facilities not already covered by give the police the means to identify drug drivers and the Act at the same time as commencing the existing compel them to give evidential samples for testing. It custody provisions. is just as dangerous for people to drive impaired by Both the commencement and extension orders will alcohol or drugs, and it is quite wrong that it is easier be subject to an affirmative resolution of each House at present to get away with one than the other. There of Parliament. needs to be a clear message that drug drivers are as likely to be caught and punished as drink drivers and that drug driving is as socially unacceptable as drink Correction to Commons Oral Answer driving. Statement We have taken the first steps to address this with a specification for drug testing equipment for the police. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry We aim to have this available for use later this year. We of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): My right honourable will—as Sir Peter suggested—examine the case for a friend the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare new specific offence which would remove the need for and Veterans (Mr Robathan) has made the following the police to prove impairment on a case-by-case basis Written Ministerial Statement. where a specified drug has been detected. The introduction WS 39 Written Statements[21 MARCH 2011] Written Statements WS 40 of fixed thresholds for blood-alcohol as the test for Cycling drink driving has delivered benefits to road safety that are clear for all to see. Statement Our strategy is to focus resources and any legislative changes on measures which will have the most impact Earl Attlee: My honourable friend the Parliamentary in reducing dangerous behaviours. There are therefore Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker) two main priorities: has made the following Ministerial Statement. to continue the successful abatement of drink Today, I am announcing £836,000 of additional driving and achieve similar success against drug funding in this financial year to implement a number driving by giving the police effective tools to of small sustainable projects in the Cycle Towns and, identify and proceed against drink and drug separately, for three train operating companies to enhance drivers; and their bike and rail schemes. This exceptional decision has been made possible due to prudent management to streamline the enforcement process for drink of departmental expenditure, including additional and drug driving to remove pressure on police and efficiencies made this year. other enforcement resources. The chosen cycle town projects—Blackpool, Bristol, A staggering proportion of drink drivers are well Cambridge, Colchester, Darlington, Derby, Exeter, over the current limit—40 per cent of those caught by Leighton-Linslade, South Glos, Southend, Shrewsbury the police are 2.5 times the limit. The proportion of and Woking—have been assessed as capable of being drivers over the limit who are killed is the same. Their delivered within the current financial year while offering behaviour is entrenched and displays a flagrant disregard value for money. I believe this additional funding will for the law and the safety of other road users. We have assist in meeting the overall aims of the project to get concluded that improving enforcement is likely to have more people cycling safely.All the recommended projects most impact on these dangerous people, and will fit well with the strategic objectives of the towns therefore be the most effective use of scarce resources, concerned and will increase the effectiveness of their rather than lowering the prescribed alcohol limit for existing programmes in generating additional cyclists. driving. The three train operating companies, Merseyrail, We will implement the following measures, bringing South West Trains and Northern Rail, have worked forward legislation where necessary at the earliest hard, in partnership with local authorities and other opportunity: organisations, including Sustrans and Network Rail, to deliver high-quality infrastructure improvements revoke the right to opt for a blood test when the accompanied by promotional activities. This is with evidential breath test result is less than 40 per cent the aim of encouraging more cycling to railway stations over the limit (the statutory option) as this causes and to deliver improved integration of bike and rail delaywhichresultsinsomeoffendersavoidingprosecution; journeys. This money will enable further enhancements streamline the procedure for testing drink drivers in to these schemes. hospital; Today’s announcement complements, and is in addition close a loophole used by high-risk offenders to to, our recently launched local sustainable transport delay their medical examinations; fund which allows local authorities to bid for a share of £560 million over four years, aimed at encouraging require drink drivers who are substantially in excess sustainable transport solutions, including cycling initiatives, of the limit to take remedial training and a linked that will create economic growth and cut carbon. driving assessment—as well as a medical examination— This additional funding demonstrates the Government’s before recovering their licence; continued commitment to cycling, recognising its potential relaunch the drink drive rehabilitation scheme contribution to reducing carbon emissions, improving under which drink drivers can get the period of health and creating economic growth. their driving disqualification reduced if they complete an approved training course; approve portable evidential breath testing equipment Employment: Flexible Working for the police and provide for preliminary testing Statement not to be required where evidential testing can be undertaken away from the police station; approve preliminary drug-testing equipment, initially The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for use in police stations and at the roadside as soon for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): as possible; and My honourable friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs (Edward Davey) delegate to custody nurses the assessment police made the following Statement to the House on Friday doctors are now required to make of suspected 18 March 2011. drug-drivers. I am announcing today that I intend to repeal Full impact assessments, including among other shortly the regulations on extending the right to request things the potential impacts on enforcement and the flexible working to parents of 17 year-olds that were judicial system, will be prepared in the usual way when laid before Parliament on 16 December 2010 and that legislation is brought forward. were due to come into force on the 6 April 2011. WS 41 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 42

The Government remain committed to extending homes, small businesses and communities, and the full the right to request flexible working to all employees range of innovative technologies. in due course. We will consult on this extension later in In these financially challenging times, it is even the spring. more important that we get the balance of the scheme The Government are constantly listening to the right. The projections for take-up of FITs published views of all stakeholders including business, and it has by the previous Government failed to anticipate any recently become clear that this small extension to the large or small-scale non-domestic solar PV installations flexible working regulations could be an unhelpful until 2013. These projections have clearly proved to be complication at this important point in the UK’s flawed. Current market indications are that a rapid economic recovery when employers need to focus on increase in the number of larger solar installations growth and creating jobs. We therefore intend to repeal entering the scheme could distort funding for smaller these regulations, which will also avoid multiple changes and domestic-scale installations as well as other to the flexible working regulations over the coming technologies. Conversely the current tariff levels have years. failed to spur a meaningful uptake for anaerobic digestion which means that this technology is not fulfilling its Energy: Feed-in Tariffs potential contribution to our energy mix. Decentralised renewables are a vital part of green Statement growth and the FITs scheme has proved highly successful at stimulating growth, driving innovation, creating The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, jobs and cutting carbon. We must act now to ensure Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord that the scheme continues to deliver and we are able to Marland): My right honourable friend the Minister of achieve both our spending review commitment to State for Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker) improving the efficiency of the scheme, which will has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. deliver £40 million of savings (around 10 per cent) in I am today announcing a consultation as part of 2014-15, as well as ensuring that the benefits of a the fast-track review of feed-in tariffs (FITs) for small-scale faster fall in technology costs are shared as widely as low-carbon electricity generation. possible rather than captured in higher returns for a On 7 February, I announced the start of the first small number of individual investors. comprehensive review of the FITs scheme for small-scale We are seeking views on proposed tariffs until low-carbon electricity generation which would: 6 May 2011. The Government will not act retrospectively assess all aspects of the scheme including tariff and any changes to generation tariffs implemented as levels, administration and eligibility of technologies; a result of the review will only affect new entrants into be completed by the end of the year, with tariffs the FITs scheme. Installations which are already accredited remaining unchanged until April 2012 (unless the for FITs at the time will not be affected. We propose review reveals a need for greater urgency); that these changes take effect from 1 August 2011, fast-track consideration of large-scale solar projects subject to the outcome of this consultation and (over 50 kilowatts) with a view to making any resulting parliamentary scrutiny. changes to tariffs as soon as practical, subject to We are also seeking views on the scope of the consultation and parliamentary scrutiny as required comprehensive review by 12 April 2011. by the Energy Act 2008; and The consultation document can be accessed at: alongside the fast-track review of large-scale solar www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/ PV, undertake a short study into the take-up of fit_review/fit_review.aspx. FITs for farm-based anaerobic digestion plants. The document published today deals with the last two of these points, and seeks views on proposals to EU: Energy Council changes tariffs for solar photovoltaic (PV) installations larger that 50 kilowatts and farm scale anaerobic Statement digestion (AD) of up to 500 kilowatts. The proposed new bands and tariffs are as follows: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, For large PV installations: Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord >50kW - =150kW: 19p/kWh; Marland): My right honourable friend the Secretary >150kW - =250kW: 15p/kWh; and of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne) >250kW - =5MW: 8.5p/kWh. has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. And for farm scale AD installations: I will be attending the extraordinary Energy Council =250kW: 14p/kWh; and on 21 March, which has been called by the Hungarian >250 - =500kW: 13p/kWh. presidency in order to take stock of the events in north The FITs scheme has been a success since its launch Africa and Japan and to discuss their effect on energy in April 2010 with over 27,000 FITs installations registered markets. The council will focus on two discussion to date, of which 92 per cent are domestic-scale solar points: PV generators, which are not affected by the proposed to review the state of play in the energy sectors of changes in the fast-track review. The FITs scheme the countries linked to these international developments rewards generators for the green electricity they produce, as well as their consequences on energy markets (eg, use and sell back to the grid. We want to protect the supply from north Africa, evolution of demand in diversity of the FITs scheme, and ensure that it benefits Japan); and WS 43 Written Statements[21 MARCH 2011] Written Statements WS 44

to exchange views on the response, already under left free of unwarranted scrutiny. This will mean a way or to be undertaken, at EU (eg, crisis information very substantial drop in the number of health and and monitoring, various gas and oil co-ordination safety inspections carried out in Britain. We will also mechanisms) and member-state level (eg, national shift the cost burden of health and safety away from plans, redeployment of national supplies, review of the taxpayer, and instead make those organisations safety measures), over various time horizons (from that fail to meet their obligations pay to put things short term to medium/long term). right. I intend to emphasise that member states and the We will seek to clarify and simplify health and Commission need carefully to establish what lessons safety legislation, and in doing so ease the burden on can be learned from Japan to see how they can be business. We are today launching new “Health and applied in the EU. The Government take the incident Safety Made Simple” guidance to provide lower risk in Japan extremely seriously and I have already called small and medium-sized businesses with the essential on the chief nuclear inspector, Dr Mike Weightman, information they need to achieve a basic level of for a thorough report on the implications of the health and safety management in their workplace in a situation in Japan and the lessons to be learned. I will single, easy-to-use package. We are also launching an also emphasise that the EU should wait until the facts immediate review of health and safety regulation overseen of the Japanese accident are clearer before taking any by an independent advisory panel chaired by Professor decisions about changes to the safety framework. Ragnar Löfstedt, director of the King’s Centre for As regards the events in north Africa, we will Risk Management at King’s College, London. The continue to emphasise the importance of close engagement review will be asked to make recommendations by with other states in the IEA and the IEF to ensure that autumn 2011 for simplifying the current rules. We will proper consideration is given to any measure that also ask the review to consider whether changes to would calm the market. legislation are needed to clarify the position of employers in cases where employees act in a grossly irresponsible manner. Health and Safety Further details are available on the Department for Statement Work and Pensions website at www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/ health-and-safety. The latest progress on the implementation of the recommendations of Lord Young’s The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department report Common Sense Common Safety can be found for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud): My right honourable on the same website. friend the Minister for Employment (Chris Grayling) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. The Government are committed to a health and Immigration safety regime that is fair, balanced and proportionate. Statement Sensible health and safety at work helps to maintain a healthy and productive workforce and contributes to economic prosperity. The burden of health and safety The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville- red tape has, however, become too great, with too Jones): My honourable friend the Minister of State for many inspections of relatively low-risk and good Immigration (Damian Green) has today made the performing workplaces, frequently poor health and following Written Ministerial Statement. safety advice to businesses from badly qualified I have today published a report detailing the consultants, and a complex structure for regulation. Government’s response to the public consultation Refusing To address these issues, the Government are today Entry or Stay to NHS Debtors conducted by the UK publishing their plans for the reform of the health and Border Agency between February and June last year. safety system. The consultation sought views on a proposal to amend We will clamp down on the rogue health and safety the UK’s Immigration Rules so that those subject to advisers who cost industry so much money by providing immigration control who fail to pay treatment charges advice which often bears little relation to the actual made by the National Health Service under the relevant requirements of legislation. To achieve this we have charging regulations for overseas visitors will normally launched an official occupational safety and health be refused further leave to enter or remain. It also consultants register for those health and safety covered associated arrangements for the National Health practitioners who are properly accredited to one of Service to notify the UK Border Agency of relevant the professional bodies in the industry. Those who do non-payments. My honourable friend the Parliamentary not have the requisite expertise and experience will be Under-Secretary of State for Public Health is also excluded from the register, making it easier for employers publishing today a consultation report detailing the to access reliable, reputable advice. I am pleased to response to a separate Department of Health public announce that the register will be open for the use of consultation on changes to the NHS charging regulations employers from today. in England. We will shift the focus of health and safety activity We have carefully considered the response to the away from businesses that do the right thing, and UK Border Agency consultation, which was generally instead concentrate efforts on higher risk areas and on supportive of the proposals, and have decided to dealing with serious breaches of health and safety implement the proposed change to the Immigration regulation. Those organisations which pose a lesser Rules in October this year. Those who fail to discharge risk and which meet their legal responsibilities will be debts to the NHS of or in excess of £1,000 will WS 45 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 46 normally be refused by the UK Border Agency if they The charging regime provides for some categories seek further permission to enter or remain in the of non-residents to be exempt from charges, and country. international agreements provide reciprocal healthcare Copies of the response document will be placed in that benefits visitors from and to participant countries. the Library of the House. It also takes full account of humanitarian obligations in the provision of healthcare, in particular ensuring that the emergency medical needs of any person are International Criminal Court treated irrespective of their status or ability to pay. The consultation was based on a limited review of Statement access and charging policy.After considering the responses we received the Government have decided to take The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth forward their main proposals, specifically to lay the Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My honourable new consolidated charging regulations including the friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth specific changes that were consulted on: Affairs (Henry Bellingham) has made the following extend the time UK residents can spend abroad Written Ministerial Statement. without losing automatic entitlement to free hospital The United Kingdom has made a donation of treatment from three months to six months; £500,000 to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) allow failed asylum seekers who are on UK Border Trust Fund for Victims. Agency support schemes for families, or because The Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) was established there is a barrier to their immediate return, to by the states parties of the ICC in 2002 to benefit the continue to receive free hospital treatment (but retain victims of crimes within the court’s jurisdiction. It is charges for those other failed asylum seekers who entirely funded by voluntary donations, and the British refuse to return home); and Government are now the second largest contributor to guarantee the provision of free hospital treatment the fund. The focus of its work so far has been in for unaccompanied children while under local authority northern Uganda and the Democratic Republic of care Congo, where its project work provides assistance to the victims of the most serious crimes, including torture In addition, we are taking this opportunity to introduce and sexual violence. a limited-term exemption for Olympic and Paralympic Games competitors and officials in line with a The ICC is now established as a cornerstone of the commitment made in our successful 2005 bid, and to international justice system, and the recent referral to amend the trigger for exempting charges for pandemic the court by the United Nations Security Council of flu treatment to protect public health. the situation in Libya was a clear example of the core role that the court is now playing on the international We also support the Home Office’s plan to introduce stage. In all its work, the ICC has placed a special proportionate immigration sanctions on overseas visitors focus on the rights and needs of victims. The TFV, who refuse to pay appropriate charges for treatment anticipating that its mandate on reparations will be provided. The department will therefore introduce activated in the foreseeable future, will continue to measures to enable data sharing with the Home Office play an increasingly important role in support of these to support this while guaranteeing necessary data victims, as they seek to re-establish their dignity and privacy standards. livelihood. However, it is increasingly clear that the overall charging regime is neither balanced nor efficient. Overall entitlement to free healthcare, through residency or NHS: Foreign Nationals other qualifying exemptions, is often more generous to visitors and short-term residents than is reciprocated Statement for UK citizens seeking treatment in many other countries. Charging regulations only cover hospital treatment, so The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department visitors may receive free primary care and other non- of Health (Earl Howe): My honourable friend the hospital-based healthcare services. Although hospitals Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department have a statutory duty to enforce the regulations, effective of Health (Anne Milton), has made the following enforcement by hospitals appears to vary considerably. Written Ministerial Statement. For these reasons we believe that a further fundamental I am today publishing the Government’s response review of the current policy is needed. The review will to the public consultation on access to the National include: Health Service by foreign nationals that was issued by qualifying residency criteria for free treatment; the previous Administration before the election. the full range of other current criteria that exempt The NHS is built on the principle that it provides a particular services or visitors from charges for their comprehensive service, based on clinical need, not the treatment; ability to pay. However, it is not free of charge to all comers. Legislation dating back to 1977 permits persons whether visitors should be charged for GP services who are not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and other NHS services outside of hospitals; to be charged for NHS services and subsequent establishing more effective and efficient processes regulations, first introduced in 1982, impose a charging across the NHS to screen for eligibility and to regime in respect of hospital treatment. make and recover charges; and WS 47 Written Statements[21 MARCH 2011] Written Statements WS 48

whether to introduce a requirement for health PSPRB_Annual_Reports.aspx. I am grateful to the insurance tied to visas. chair and members of the PSPRB for their hard work Access for European Union residents is determined in producing these recommendations. by separate EU regulations. The review will not consider The PSPRB key recommendations for 2011 are as changes to these regulations. follows: The review will respect the NHS’s core values and a consolidated increase of £250 to all pay points at its obligations to provide urgent treatment, as well as or below £21,000, including the first two points on the need to protect public health and observe international the closed prison officer scale; and agreements. Denying necessary access to any person a requirement for the service and the POA to or group is not an option. We will consider the full engage promptly in constructive dialogue with a benefits and costs of introducing new charges including view to agreeing the pay scales to apply for prison risks of deferred or delayed treatment and any other officer 2, prison officer 1 and the new operational societal costs. It will be informed by exploring equivalent support grade (OSG). policies in other health economies and we will seek The PSPRB’s recommendations, which are consistent views and input from NHS managers and other interested with our proposals for 2011-12, will be implemented. parties. The scope of options is deliberately wide-ranging The cost of the award will be met from within the and we do not want to rule individual changes in or delegated budget allocation for the National Offender out pending this further evaluation. The proposals Management Service. will be the subject of a full public consultation on completion of the review. The Government’s response to the consultation has School Teachers’ Review Body been placed in the Library. Copies are available to Statement honourable Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove) NHS Pay Review Body made the following Written Ministerial Statement. Statement The School Teachers’ Review Body’s (STRB’s) recommendations on pay for those unqualified teachers The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department who earn a full-time equivalent salary of £21,000 or of Health (Earl Howe): My right honourable friend the less are being published today. The recommendations Secretary of State for Health (Andrew Lansley) has cover the first of two matters which were referred to made the following Written Ministerial Statement. the STRB in October 2010. I am grateful for the careful consideration which the STRB has given to I am responding on behalf of my right honourable this matter. Copies of the STRB’s analysis and friend the Prime Minister to the 25th report of the recommendations are available in the Vote Office, the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB). The report has Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of the House, been laid before Parliament today (Cm 8029). Copies and online at http://www.education.gov.uk and http:// of the report are available to honourable Members www.ome.uk.com/. from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the The STRB has recommended that a non-consolidated Printed Paper Office. I am grateful to the chair and payment of £250 should be made to those unqualified members of the NHSPRB for their report. teachers who earn £21,000 or less; that the £250 is We welcome the NHSPRB’s 25th report and accept pro-rated for part-time unqualified teachers; and that its conclusions in full. We will take forward the suggested consultation should seek to identify a simple and actions, which will help us continue to improve our cost-effective method of payment. support for the NHSPRB’s important work. I am grateful to the STRB for these recommendations which will apply to those unqualified teachers on scale Prison Service Pay Review Body points 1 to 3 and, subject to consultees’ views, I intend to accept these recommendations. Statement My detailed response contains further information on these issues. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Annexe to Written Ministerial Statement of 21 March McNally): My honourable friend the Parliamentary 2011 Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Crispin Department for Education Blunt), has made the following Written Ministerial School Teachers’ Review Body’s (STRB’s) Statement. recommendations on pay for those unqualified teachers The 10th report of the Prison Service Pay Review who earn a full-time equivalent salary of £21,000 or Body (PSPRB) (Cm 8021) has been laid before Parliament less and response from the Secretary of State for Education today. The report makes recommendations for staff (Michael Gove). within the remit group who earn the full-time equivalent [The following sets out the STRB’s recommendations of £21,000 and below, and who are eligible for an which were published on 21 March 2011, together increase in 2011-12 under the Government’s announced with the response from the Secretary of State for pay policy for public sector workforces. Copies of Education. The STRB’s recommendations below are the report are available at http://www.ome.uk.com/ in bold.] WS 49 Written Statements[LORDS] Written Statements WS 50

The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): those earning over £21,000 and placing restrictions on The STRB’s analysis and recommendations on pay for bonuses for senior managers; transparency has been those unqualified teachers who earn a full-time equivalent increased by publishing the salaries of senior Whitehall salary of £21,000 or less are being published today. officials; and requirements for ministerial scrutiny of The recommendations cover the first matter which the highest public sector wages have been extended was referred to the STRB in October 2010. Copies of and strengthened. the analysis and recommendations are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries In the Civil Service in particular significant savings of the House and online at http://www.education.gov.uk have been made. Departmental spending envelopes set and http://www.ome.uk.com/. at the spending review mean that administration costs will fall by £5.899 million by 2014-15, a reduction of In making its recommendations, the STRB was 34 per cent. In addition departments have taken forward required to have regard to items a to e set out in the recruitment freezes which, alongside reforms to the remit letter of 27 October 2010. The recommendations Civil Service Compensation Scheme, will deliver further apply to those unqualified teachers earning £21,000 or savings over the spending review period. less in the context of the two-year public sector pay freeze that will affect teachers from September 2011; It is in this context that the 33rd report of the and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s instruction review body on senior salaries (SSRB) is being published that there should be a minimum award of £250 in each today. The report covers the remuneration of the of these two years. I am grateful for the careful attention judiciary, senior civil servants, senior officers in the the STRB has given to this matter. Armed Forces and certain senior NHS managers. The STRB is due to submit its 20th report, which Copies have been laid in the Vote Office, the Printed will include the recommendations set out below as Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses. I well as recommendations on whether there should be a thank the SSRB for its work in preparing this report. limit on the value of discretions that can be applied to headteachers’ pay, by 30 March. I propose, therefore, The Judiciary that the statutory consultation on the STRB’s Given in particular the two-year pay freeze that will recommendations (below) should wait until the 20th report be in place for public servants earning over £21,000 and my response to that report are published in due from April 2011, the Government are not announcing course. I will, however, accept comments in the mean any immediate changes to judicial salaries, but are time on the pay recommendations for unqualified considering the detail of the report overall and will teachers earning £21,000 or less. respond at an appropriate time. Recommendations on pay for unqualified teachers earning £21,000 or less Senior Civil Service The STRB has recommended that: The Government confirm that they will continue to a non-consolidated payment of £250 be made in both work on reforms to the current SCS reward model that years to all full-time teachers on spine points 1 to 3 are consistent with the Government’s wider policy on of the unqualified teachers’ scale; restraint in public sector pay, and senior pay in particular, the £250 payment be pro-rated according to their and the need to ensure that the Civil Service can working hours for part-time teachers on points 1 to 3 continue to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient people of the unqualified teachers’ scale; of the necessary quality to fulfil the important roles the department consult, with a view to identifying a undertaken by the SCS. The Government are grateful simple and cost-effective method of payment, and for the constructive engagement from the trade unions issue guidance as appropriate. on SCS pay reform and will continue to consult and engage with them going forwards. I am grateful to the STRB for its consideration of this issue and, subject to consultees’ views, I intend to Senior Officers in the Armed Forces implement the payment from September 2011. I also intend, subject to consultees’ views, for the school’s The Government have accepted the review body’s relevant body to decide how the £250 payment should recommendation that the Ministry of Defence review be implemented. the performance management and pay system and consider whether improvements can be made. Senior Salaries Review Body Senior NHS Managers Statement The Government thank the review body for its work in this area and for continuing to monitor The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord recruitment and retention over the pay freeze period. Strathclyde): My right honourable friend the Prime Other Review Body reports for 2011-12 Minister has made the following Statement. Since coming to power the Government have taken My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State a number of steps to control public sector pay. At the for Defence, Justice, Education and Health are making first meeting of the Cabinet, Ministers announced Statements today on the reports of the Armed Forces that they would take a 5 per cent pay cut—and that Pay Review Body, the Prison Service Pay Body, the their pay would be frozen for the rest of the Parliament— School Teachers’ Review Body, and the NHS Pay vital savings have been achieved by freezing the pay of Review Body in respect of pay for the relevant workforces. WS 51 Written Statements[21 MARCH 2011] Written Statements WS 52

Transport: Urban Congestion The £3.75 million payment will be shared between the participating areas as below: Statement Urban Area Sum to be paid via Tranche 4

Earl Attlee: My honourable friend the Parliamentary London £1,125,000 Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker) Greater Manchester £470,364 has made the following Ministerial Statement. West Midlands £438,727 I am today announcing the final tranche of payments West Yorkshire £382,600 from the urban congestion performance fund that will South Yorkshire £300,752 see the 10 largest urban areas in England receive a Tyne and Wear £252,049 further £3.75 million to address the causes of urban Merseyside £320,892 congestion. Nottingham £155,890 These payments are the final payments made through West of England (Bristol) £154,869 the fund, which is linked to the local congestion targets Leicester £148,857 set by the 10 largest urban areas in England in their Total £3,750,000 local transport plans.

WA 101 Written Answers[21 MARCH 2011] Written Answers WA 102 Written Answers Armed Forces: Aircraft Question Monday 21 March 2011 Asked by Lord Fearn To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many British aircraft carriers there are. [HL7522] Apprenticeships Questions The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): There is one in-service Asked by Lord Addington aircraft carrier, HMS “Illustrious”, and two that have To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice been withdrawn from service. Of these, HMS “Ark they have received on how best to make apprenticeships Royal” is in the process of being disposed of, while accessible to dyslexics. [HL7542] transfer of ownership for the former HMS “Invincible” has recently been agreed. ToaskHerMajesty’sGovernmentwhatrepresentations they have received from disability groups about access to the apprenticeship qualification. [HL7544] Armed Forces: Joint Military Exercise Question Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness To ask Her Majesty’s Government with which Wilcox): Apprenticeships are designed around employers’ countries they have done joint military exercises needs for performance in a particular skill, trade or since 1990. [HL7586] occupation, and the same requirements apply to all apprentices. An apprenticeship framework comprises The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry the separate elements of a competence-based qualification, of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): Records of joint a technical certificate, transferable functional or key military exercises with other countries from 1990 to skills or their GCSE equivalent and non-certificated 2005 are not held centrally, and could only be provided elements covering employee rights and responsibilities, at disproportionate cost. Information since 2006 is as and practical learning and thinking skills. follows: We have had no representations specifically focused on dyslexia, other than correspondence on individual Albania Algeria cases. A working group of external experts chaired by Angola Peter Little OBE is advising officials on access to the Anguilla apprenticeship programme for people with disabilities Armenia and/or learning difficulties, including implementation Australia of the flexibility that will allow people with disabilities Bahrain to use alternative forms of evidence to establish their Bangladesh suitability for an apprenticeship. The Apprenticeships Barbados Unit has commissioned a study led by SKILL to Belgium analyse apprenticeship disability data and develop Belize recommendations on ways to make the programme Brazil more accessible and improve success rates for disabled Brunei apprentices. Bulgaria Asked by Lord Addington Canada Cape Verde Island To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether current Cayman Island apprenticeship schemes are compatible with the Chile Disability Discrimination Act. [HL7543] China Colombia Croatia Baroness Wilcox: The basis of the current Czech Republic apprenticeship programme was set out in World Class Denmark Apprenticeships and enacted in the Apprenticeships, Djibouti Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. Both of these Egypt were subject to an equality impact assessment. All El Salvador apprenticeship frameworks are based on the Specification Estonia of Apprenticeship Standards in England (SASE) on Finland which disability organisations were consulted. Framework France developers are required to have regard to disability Gambia legislation in preparing apprenticeship frameworks Germany and quality assurance guidelines for framework Ghana Georgia development reinforce this. Issuing authorities have Greece directions and guidance from the Secretary of State to Hungary ensure that the quality assurance guidelines are adhered to. WA 103 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 104

(TBBC) with European Commission counterparts as Iceland well as with other donors. DfID has consistently made India Indonesia clear that the well-being of Burmese refugees in Thailand Iraq should not be adversely affected by funding reductions. Israel DfID has allocated £1.1 million to TBBC for 2011. Italy Jamaica Japan Consumer Prices Index Jordan Question Kazakhstan Kenya Asked by Lord Barnett Kuwait Latvia To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions Lithuania they have had with the Office for National Statistics Malaysia on the basket used to calculate the consumer prices Malta index. [HL7829] Mexico Montserrat Morocco Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The information requested Netherlands falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics New Zealand Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply. Nigeria Letter from Stephen Penneck, Director General for Norway ONS, to Lord Barnett, dated March 2011. Oman As Director General for the Office for National Pakistan Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your Poland Parliamentary Question asking Her Majesty’s Portugal Government what discussions they have had with the Qatar Office for National Statistics on the basket used to Republic of Ireland calculate the consumer prices index (HL7829). Republic of Korea Romania The ONS conducts a comprehensive review of the Russia CPI “basket” each year to ensure that the index remains Saudi Arabia up to date and representative of consumer spending Sierra Leone patterns. It is for the ONS to decide the content of the Singapore “basket” and as such there are no discussions with Her Slovakia Majesty’s Government on this subject. Slovenia Further details on the review process and the update South Africa of CPI basket in 2011 are available on the National Spain Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/ Sweden nugget.asp?id=2660. Switzerland Tanzania Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Crime: Burglary Turkey Question Turks and Caicos Ukraine Asked by Lord Laird United Arab Emirates To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Uruguay burglaries occurred in each of the past three years USA for which records are held according to (a) the Venezuela British Crime Survey, and (b) police recorded crime Yemen statistics. [HL7515]

Burma The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville- Question Jones): The attached tables show the standard breakdowns of burglary incidents presented in Home Office Statistical Asked by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead Bulletins. ToaskHerMajesty’sGovernmentwhatrepresentations The British Crime Survey (BCS) covers the population they have made to the European Commission about resident in households in England and Wales and the cuts to its financial support to the Thailand includes crimes that are not reported to or recorded by Burma Border Consortium. [HL7505] the police. However, incidents as measured by the BCS are estimates based on a survey and cover only domestic Baroness Verma: Department for International burglary.Figures are provided for the number of incidents Development (DfID) staff frequently discuss financial of domestic burglary from the 2007-08, 2008-09 and support for the Thailand Burma Border Consortium 2009-10 BCS (Table 1). WA 105 Written Answers[21 MARCH 2011] Written Answers WA 106

Police recorded incidents of burglary are also provided As a result of this more local approach to for the past three years (Table 2). These figures are commissioning each project has a different funding counts of burglary recorded by the police and include arrangement. In all cases funding levels will be lower burglaries that occur in domestic properties and in than 2010-11 to take account of the need for efficiencies. commercial and other properties. Hull, Leeds/Bradford and Salford projects were BCS incidents of domestic burglary from 2007-08 to 2009-10 funded by the MoJ in 2010-11 and NOMS has Numbers1 confirmed funding for 2011-12; (000s) BCS Sheffield were funded by MoJ and the Corston 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Independent Funders Coalition in 2010-11 and NOMS Burglary 718 725 659 has confirmed funding for 2011-12; in addition With entry 427 441 393 funding is being made available by HMP and YOI Attempts 291 285 267 New Hall for through the gate services; and With loss 314 308 276 Liverpool TWP was closed in September 2009. A No loss 404 417 384 new contract for the service funded for 18 months (including by MoJ and Merseyside Probation Trust was attempts) awarded to a new provider in October 2010. Unweighted 46,765 46,252 44,610 base The National Offender Management Service has also made a commitment from 2012-13 onwards to 1. BCS figures are survey estimates which are surrounded by a commission services that demonstrate their effectiveness margin of error. The latest estimate is 659,000 incidents of burglary from the 2009-10 BCS; the actual figure would lie between in diverting women from custody. 606,000 and 713,000 incidents. 2. Estimates from the 2007-08 and 2008-09 BCS have been revised, so will differ from previously published figures. Donkeys Table 2 Police recorded burglary 2007-08 to 2009-10 Question Number of offences Asked by Lord Moonie Offence 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 To ask Her Majesty’s Government what regulations Burglary in a 280,694 284,440 268,595 there are governing the weight allowed to be carried dwelling by seaside donkeys. [HL7640] Burglary in a 302,989 297,137 272,060 building other than a dwelling The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Total burglary 583,683 581,577 540,655 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs offences (Lord Henley): There are no specific regulations governing 1. Police forces may revise their data and totals may not therefore the weight allowed to be carried by seaside donkeys agree with those previously published. but the Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal and to treat an animal in a way that fails to meet its welfare needs. We consider the requirements of the Act to be Criminal Justice: Women sufficient to ensure the necessary protection of the Question welfare of seaside donkeys. Asked by Baroness Corston To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the future funding of the Together Education: Dance and Drama Women programme which diverts women from Question custody. [HL7567] Asked by Baroness Hooper To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord they have to discontinue the Dance and Drama McNally): The Ministry’s aim has been to demonstrate Awards Scheme; within what timescale; and what the effectiveness of Together Womenand similar women’s provision will be made for students who are part community projects and embed the different approach way through their courses. [HL7482] as part of local commissioning arrangements. Many projects have received funding from a range of sources, including probation trusts and local authorities, but The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for securing sufficient funding to sustain service delivery Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): The Department for has become more challenging. The National Offender Education is considering the arrangements that will Management Service (NOMS) has committed to provide apply for supporting young people over the age of further investment to sustain the majority of the projects 16 in education, including access to specialist performance in the financial year 2011-12. A full announcement arts training. We hope to be able to announce details will follow shortly. shortly. WA 107 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 108

Education: Overseas Students Equal Pay Question Question Asked by Lord Laird Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to To ask Her Majesty’s Government what legislative, the Written Answer by Lord Henley on 8 March administrative or other measures they intend to (WA 389), how many non-European Union students take to reduce the pay gap between male and female collectively paid £2.2 billion in higher education workers in the United Kingdom. [HL7541] tuition fees in 2008–09; what proportion of this sum was paid to (a) private sector, and (b) public Baroness Verma: The Government are committed sector, institutions; what was the source for this to tackling the gender pay gap and are taking a range figure; and how it was calculated. [HL7708] of measures to improve women’s position in the labour market in Great Britain. These include making pay secrecy clauses unenforceable, extending the right to request flexible working to all employees, consulting The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, on a new system of parental leave, and promoting Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gender equality on company boards. (Lord Henley): In 2008-09 academic year 251,310 students domiciled outside the European Union were enrolled In December 2010, Government also announced on higher education courses in the UK. (Source: Higher they were working with employers to help them publish Education Statistics Agency (HESA) student record). equality data about their workforce on a voluntary basis. The income of higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK is collected as part of HESA’s finance EU: Legislation record, and is the source of the £2.2 billion figure used Question in the answer on 8 March. This includes data submitted by all HEIs which receive direct public funding, plus Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon the University of Buckingham, which is the only institution which receives no direct public funding Toask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion whose data are included in the finance record. The of United Kingdom business regulation derives from same HEIs provide data for the student record, where European Union legislation; what steps they plan to the above figure of 251,310 students comes from. take to reduce future European Union business legislation; and whether they plan to try to repeal The University of Buckingham’s income from overseas any European Union business legislation. [HL7520] fees was 0.3 per cent of the £2.2 billion received in total by all HEIs in the HESA finance record. The £2.2 billion figure includes fees for all HE The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, courses (postgraduate and undergraduate) for students Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness whose normal residence prior to commencing their Wilcox): The proportion of planned regulation stemming programme of study was outside the EU. from the EU between April 2010 and March 2011 accounted for approximately one third of the total volume of regulation. The proportion varies each year. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister recently announced three new major policy goals to English Parliament reduce the regulatory burden originating in Brussels. Question These are to bring in a one-in, one-out rule for new EU regulations; set a new and tougher target to actually Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon reduce the total regulatory burden over the life of the Commission; and give small businesses—engines of To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to job creation—an exemption from big new regulations. the Written Statement by Lord Wallace of Tankerness on 7 March (WS 145) on the Welsh referendum, whether they will bring forward legislation enabling EU: UK Membership the English to decide through a referendum whether Questions they are in favour of establishing an English Parliament. [HL7578] Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord on 8 February (WA 46–7), what is the impact on the McNally): As the noble Lord is aware the coalition formulation of United Kingdom foreign policy of programme for government committed the Government the United Kingdom’s share of voting rights in the to establishing a commission to consider the West European Union decision-making process. [HL7456] Lothian question. An English Parliament has been proposed in the past as a solution to the West Lothian The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth question. It would be open to the commission, once Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): There is no impact. established, to consider this as part of its review. The UK’s foreign policy is decided by Ministers acting WA 109 Written Answers[21 MARCH 2011] Written Answers WA 110 in the UK’s national interest, and thus unaffected by To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they the UK’s share of voting rights in the EU. The EU’s expect to reach agreement in ECOFIN on controls external policies are decided by unanimity, and thus on short selling in stock markets. [HL7655] similarly unaffected. Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The Financial Services Authority (FSA) To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to introduced restrictions to short selling in the UK in the Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford autumn 2008 using powers under the Financial Services on 8 February (WA 46–7), whether benefits for and Markets Act 2000. The FSA was granted further British citizens arising from the free movement powers in the Financial Services Act 2010 to require across European Union member states of people the disclosure of information on short selling and for work or study and enjoyment of free or reduced prohibit short selling in specified cases. healthcare costs in European Union member states In September 2010 the European Commission could also be achieved through bilateral agreements, published a draft proposal on short selling and certain as is the case with some countries outside the European aspects of credit default swaps. The proposal has been Union. [HL7459] turned into a draft regulation which is currently being negotiated by EU member states. The UK is taking a Lord Howell of Guildford: We do not consider that full and active part in these negotiations. benefits for British citizens similar to those arising from European Union membership could be achieved Financial Services Authority effectively or efficiently through the negotiation of Questions multiple bilateral agreements. Asked by Lord Myners Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 28 February Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford on 8 February (WA269–70),whatwastheoutcomeof theirconsideration (WA 46–7, what would be the cost of carrying out a as to whether any changes should be made to the cost-benefit analysis of the United Kingdom’s membership process by which the Financial Services Authority of the European Union. [HL7460] answers parliamentary questions. [HL7415] To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Lord Howell of Guildford: I refer the noble Lord to the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 28 February the noble Lord Sassoon’s response of 11 February (WA 269–70), what is their assessment of the likely 2011 (WA 96). Since there is no intention to carry out impact on the independence of the Financial a cost-benefit analysis of EU membership, the cost of Services Authority of a requirement to publish such an analysis is not known. their answers to parliamentary questions in the Official Report. [HL7416]

Father James Chesney The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Question Sassoon): As I set out in my earlier Answer, Treasury Asked by Lord Laird Ministers ensure that the department and its associated bodies report to Parliament in the appropriate way, To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discretion according to the status of the individual entities. Having the Northern Ireland Office gave to the Royal Ulster assessed the handling of Financial Services Authority Constabulary about the questioning of Father James (FSA) parliamentary questions, we have decided that Chesney about the alleged murders in Cloudy, County it would be appropriate to retain the current practice Londonderry in 1972. [HL7767] whereby the FSA writes directly to Peers and Members in response to their questions. The Government believe that retention of that practice is both transparent— Lord Shutt of Greetland: The Northern Ireland Members and Peers can make the replies they receive Office was not in 1972, nor is it now, responsible for public in any way they see fit—and proper in terms of directing police investigations. the FSA’s operational independence from Government.

Finance: Short Selling Fluoridation Questions Question Asked by Lord Dykes Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 28 February they have to control uncovered short selling by (WA 229), (a) whether the statement by the National speculative investors. [HL7652] Fluoride Information Centre that naturally and To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they artificially fluoridated water have “exactly the same will support the latest European Parliament draft effects”is consistent with the conclusion by researchers resolution to prohibit uncovered short selling in in the Newcastle bioavailability study that although financial markets. [HL7654] the study found “no statistically significant difference”, WA 111 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 112

there were “observed differences [in absorption] The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord between the two types of fluoride”; (b) why only McNally): The Ministry of Justice is consulting a 20 subjects were included in the study, with the number of bodies regarding their possible inclusion power to detect only a relatively large statistically within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act significant difference; and (c) why neither they nor (FOIA). The bodies being consulted have been largely the National Fluoride Information Centre have drawn from nominations received in response to a referred to the caveats to that effect by the authors public consultation in 2007 and the Higher Education in Section 6 of the original June 2004 report of the Statistics Authority was not a nominated body. However, Newcastle study, who wrote of the “limits imposed the Government will keep the scope of the FOIA by the small number of subjects”. [HL7429] under review and may consider its extension to additional bodies in the future. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): The statement by Government Departments: Energy the National Fluoride Information Centre is based upon the report of a different research study: Chemistry Certificates and Bioavailability Aspects of Fluoride in Drinking Questions Water by the Water Research Consultancy available Asked by Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay at: www.bfsweb.org/facts/sof_effects/Chemistry&Bio.htm. The study concluded: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what level of display energy certificate was awarded to the Cabinet “Hexafluorosilicate added to fluoridate water is effectively 100 per cent dissociated to form fluoride ions under water treatment Office building at 70 Whitehall in each of the past conditions. Therefore in terms of chemistry and bioavailability three years. [HL7623] there is absolutely no difference between added and ‘natural’ fluoride”. Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The display energy certificate The department has noted the points made in the (DEC) rating for the Cabinet Office building at related Newcastle study and will continue to assess 70 Whitehall in each of the past three years were as any emerging evidence in the context of planning shown in the table below: future research requirements. Year DEC Score DEC Rating Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007-08 122 E 2007 2008-09 111 E 2009-10 95 D Question

Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill Asked by Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether charges To ask Her Majesty’s Government what level of are imposed for emergency passports or travel to display energy certificate was awarded to the Ministry the United Kingdom from overseas in cases involving of Defence office at Floor 5, Main Building, Whitehall, transnational practices in violation of the Forced in each of the past three years. [HL7625] Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007. [HL7442] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever): Display energy Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): In such cases, the certificates (DEC) are not awarded on a floor by floor price of an emergency passport and costs of travel to basis. The overall rating for main building as a whole the United Kingdom are not paid for by the Government, in each of the past three years was as follows: but are charged to the individual concerned. We would not allow a lack of funds to delay the November 2008 243— G Rating process of getting a victim to safety. If funding cannot October 2009 244—G Rating be identified, for example, from friends, family or a November 2010 241—G Rating local authority, in exceptional circumstances the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can provide a discretionary The Cabinet Office publishes data on DEC ratings on loan to cover the costs of repatriation, including any a six-monthly basis on the following website: http:// passport fees. www.ogc.gov.uk/government_delivery_display_ energy _certificate_data. Freedom of Information Act 2000 Question Government: Contracts Question Asked by Lord Lucas Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord McNally on 8 March To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment (WA 391), why there are no plans to make the they have made of the likely cost implications of Higher Education Statistics Authority subject to letting more Government contracts to small and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [HL7704] medium-sized enterprises. [HL7634] WA 113 Written Answers[21 MARCH 2011] Written Answers WA 114

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The primary objective in Government: Legislation public sector procurement is to achieve value for money. Question The Government’s strategy to increase the number of contracts awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises Asked by Lord Hunt of Chesterton is based on removing unnecessary and frequently expensive To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion barriers that hinder SME participation in bidding for of the legislation they have introduced was preceded government work. by (a) a white paper, and (b) pre-legislative scrutiny; Our actions to facilitate SME involvement should and whether they intend to increase those proportions improve value for money by fostering greater competition in the future. [HL7479] for contracts. There is nothing in the Government’s strategy for SMEs in procurement that would increase The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord costs to the public purse. Strathclyde): Of the 26 programme Bills introduced by Her Majesty’s Government, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility, Pensions, Health and Social Care, Government: Efficiency Review Education and Welfare Reform Bills were preceded by Questions a White Paper. The Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act 2010 Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath underwent pre-legislative scrutiny, and clauses of the National Insurance Contributions Bill were published To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress in advance of introduction. In addition, the Government they are making in implementing the efficiency are supporting the Wreck Removal Convention Bill, a review by Sir Philip Green. [HL7629] Private Member’s Bill which was published for pre- legislative scrutiny as part of the Marine Navigation To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Bill in May 2008. are developing a mandate for centralised procurement as recommended by Sir Philip Green in his efficiency A range of additional consultative methods were employed including consultations with interested groups review. [HL7630] and the public, for example the Your Freedom website To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they was used in the development of the Protection of plan to implement the recommendation by Sir Philip Freedoms Bill. Green in his efficiency review that they should We have announced the publication of seven draft leverage their buying power. [HL7631] Bills and expect this number to increase by the end of To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they the Session. will implement Sir Philip Green’s recommendations It is to be expected that a new Government will seek that Government property should be managed to introduce their priority legislation early and that centrally. [HL7633] opportunities for prior consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny will increase as a Parliament progresses. Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I refer the noble Lord to the answer I gave on 20 December 2010 (Official Health: Research Report, col. WA 265). Sir Philip’s recommendations Question have been incorporated into ongoing programmes within Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool the Cabinet Office. To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the Asked by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Department of Health balances patient safety with To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will the interests of international competitors in medical ensure that their proposal to encourage small and research. [HL7736] medium-sized enterprises to bid for central government contracts is consistent with the recommendation The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, for centralised purchasing made by Sir Philip Green Department of Health (Earl Howe): In line with international in his efficiency review. [HL7632] standards, the department’s policy requires that the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of participants must be the primary consideration in any research Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The Government are study. This is stipulated in the Department’s Research centralising procurement of commodity goods and GovernanceFramework(secondedition)andtheGovernance services to improve value for money. The category Arrangements for Research Ethics Committees. strategies we are developing for these commodity goods and services will drive this and will also involve SMEs where they contribute to value for money. Aggregation Higher Education: Funding of requirements does not always entail larger contracts. Questions Depending on the characteristics of the supply market, Asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough value for money may be better achieved by going to market in lots that are SME-friendly and achieve To ask Her Majesty’s Government what resource greater security of supply. This will be considered was allocated for each student aged 16–19 attending when putting together our future supply strategies for a full-time course at a further education or sixth form centralised categories. In some categories SMEs will college for the provision of Guided Tutorial and feature strongly not as main contractors but in supply Careers Advice in each of the years 2008–09, 2009–10, chains. 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, and 2013–14. [HL7549] WA 115 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 116

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): It is not possible to provide a figure for the resource allocated to guided To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many tutorial and careers advice provision for 16-19 year-olds students studying full-time in further education or in the years stipulated. It is possible to provide figures sixth form colleges currently receive support for for the amount of funding given over to the entitlement living costs through government grants and loans; curriculum, which has funded tutorial provision and and what is the total resource allocation. [HL7551] enrichment activities for all full-time 16-19 year-olds. Lord Hill of Oareford: Students in further education For the academic years 2008-09 to 2010-11 the or sixth form colleges whose income is below certain funding allocated per student was equivalent to around thresholds were, until 1 January 2011, eligible to apply £750 to cover 114 guided learning hours (glh) of for an education maintenance allowance (EMA). In tutorial and enrichment activities. For 2011-12 we 2009-10, up to and including June 2010, 646,633 young have reduced the funded guided learning hours for the people aged 16-19 received an EMA, with a total curriculum 2000 entitlement curriculum for all full-time budget of £553,614,060. The EMA was designed to learners from 114 glh to 30 glh and removed the help with the costs of participation, not to support requirement to deliver specific activities through students’ living costs, although we know that some enrichment funding. The funding allocated per full students have used their EMA to contribute towards time student will reduce to around £200 on account of their living costs. We will be replacing EMA from these changes. We recognise that tutorial provision for September 2011 with a scheme that is able to target all is important and that is why we have protected it as funding more effectively to those in greatest need of far as possible. financial assistance. We are also re-investing £150 million of the funding Where students are accessing specialist provision, saved from reducing the entitlement to support the the Young People’s Learning Agency operates specific most disadvantaged students. Targeted funding for schemes designed to help with living costs. The Residential disadvantage and additional learner support will increase Support Scheme and Residential Bursary Fund make by more than one third in 2011-12 to a total funding of approximately 4,000 awards each year, with a total some £770 million. This increased funding can be used budget of £6.1 million. to support the sort of entitlement activity (including There is no provision for loans to be made to tutorials) that will benefit the hardest to reach young students aged 16-18 in further education or sixth form people. colleges. The table below1 details the level of entitlement funding for all full time 16-19 students at further Higher Education: Transport education (FE) providers (including sixth form colleges; excluding schools and academies) between 2008-09 Question and 2010-11. The funding allocations for 2011-12 are Asked by Lord Willis of Knaresborough yet to be finalised and will be communicated to all 16-19 providers by the end of March. Estimates of the To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the total funding allocated to FE providers for the entitlement statutory requirement for local authorities to provide will only be available once detail of the level of recruitment free or subsidised transport to 16–19 year old students in the 2011-12 is available. Funding decisions and studying full-time at further education colleges, sixth priorities for the financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14 form colleges and school sixth forms. [HL7612] have yet to be agreed and so no information can be provided at this stage. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford): Local authorities Academic Year Entitlement Funding For must publish a transport policy statement by the end 16-18 Learners at FE Providers (excl. Schools of May each year. The statement should set out the & Academies)2 arrangements that the local authority will make in the 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 following academic year to help students of sixth form

3 age, and learners aged 19-25 with learning difficulties Rounded Total £460m £500m £550m and/or disabilities, access education or training. Those 1 Note—The figures exclude any disadvantage, area cost or arrangements could include providing transport to additional learning support funding that may be linked to and from college, or financial support to help with entitlement funding. transport costs. 2 Note—Specific sums for the entitlement are not explicitly allocated. Funding is allocated to all providers (including FE) at an aggregated level based on the operation of the 16-19 national International Planned Parenthood funding formula and methodology. The data in the table are Federation available due to the data submitted to the YPLA by providers at Question the end of the academic year, which details the number of students recruited eligible for entitlement funding. The 2008-09 Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool and 2009-10 figures relate to the actual number of students recruited that year and so will not tie with the funding allocations To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to made at the beginning of the those academic years based on the Written Answer by Baroness Verma on 3 March planned volumes. (WA 356–7), regarding the International Planned 3 Note—2010-11 is a forecast estimate as the academic year is Parenthood Federation (IPPF), what are the strategic not yet complete. objectives and measurable performance indicators WA 117 Written Answers[21 MARCH 2011] Written Answers WA 118

used to judge IPPF’s work; and whether they will reconciliation in the Ivory Coast. The regulation is place in the Library of the House copies of the annual directly applicable and therefore any accounts in the narrative reports for the IPPF general funding and UK held by designated persons are frozen. the governance and transparency funding. [HL7450]

Baroness Verma: I will arrange for the following Legal Aid documents to be deposited in the Library of the Questions House: Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill the Department for International Development’s (DfID’s) and the International Planned Parenthood To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their Federation’s (IPPF’s) partnership programme proposals for the provision of civil and family legal arrangement (PPA) 2008-09 to 2012-13, which sets aid in England and Wales in cases involving violence out the strategic objectives and measurable performance against women or children will include cases where indicators used to evaluate the organisations work there is physical violence, threatening or intimidating under the PPA; behaviour, and any other form of abuse which the 2009-10 annual report for this partnership directly or indirectly may give rise to the risk of programme arrangement; and harm. [HL7597] and the 2009-10 annual report for the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s funding through The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord the Governance and Transparency Fund, which McNally): The Government’s recent consultation on also contains the strategic objectives and measurable proposals to reform the legal aid scheme included the performance indicators. proposal to retain legal aid for private law family cases where there is objective evidence of domestic violence. We asked respondents for their views on situations Iraq (listed in the consultation) which might demonstrate Question this. Responses to the consultation are currently being considered, and the Government plans to publish its Asked by Lord Hylton response in the spring. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark intend to ask for the release of all writers and journalists recently arrested in Iraq, following the To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many appeal of the Writers’ Union. [HL7467] people received legal acts of assistance in each of the years 2000–01 to 2009–10 in the constituencies The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth of (a) Broxtowe, (b) North-West Leicestershire, Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): Following reports (c) Loughborough, (d) Northampton South, of the harassment of protestors in Iraq, including (e) Sherwood, (f) North Warwickshire, and (g) journalists, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Milton Keynes. [HL7614] Alistair Burt released the following statement: “We have been following events in Iraq closely. We are concerned Lord McNally: The Legal Services Commission at a number of reports of harassment of protestors, including (LSC) is responsible for administering the legal aid political groups associated with the protests, and of violence scheme in England and Wales. The LSC does not against journalists and media offices across Iraq. We call on the Iraqi and Kurdish authorities to investigate these incidents and to record the number of people who receive legal aid, but protect the right to freedom of expression and assembly.” instead records the number of acts of assistance. One Our officials in Iraq regularly meet with journalists individual may receive a number of separate acts of and media outlets to discuss their concerns. On 9 March assistance, and one act of assistance can help more 2011, embassy officials in Baghdad discussed recent than one person. developments with the Trade Union Congress. They We are re-examining the data in respect of all of the will continue to raise any concerns as appropriate with constituencies and I will write separately with this the Iraqi authorities. information. Data cannot be provided for the year 2000-01 as our systems do not hold data going back this far across all schemes. Ivory Coast Question Asked by Lord Myners Libya Questions To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether assets Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester and accounts associated with Mr Laurent Gbagbo, the former President of Ivory Coast, have been To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much frozen. [HL7414] they gave in bilateral aid to Libya in (a) 2007–08, (b) 2008–09, and (c) 2009–10; what is their estimate The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord of how much Libya received in multilateral aid Sassoon): EU Regulation 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 from the United Kingdom in each of those years; applied asset freezes against Mr Laurent Gbagbo and and what information they have about what it was others involved in obstructing peace and national spent on. [HL7187] WA 119 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 120

Baroness Verma: The Foreign and Commonwealth as in respect of an additional 21 senior members or Office (FCO) and the British Council provided the close associates of the Libyan regime and five additional UK bilateral aid to Libya in the years requested, for entities, including the Central Bank. areas such as education, human rights and capacity The Government have granted a license to allow building. This aid totalled £489,000 in 2007-08, £630,000 transactions with non-Libyan financial institutions, in 2008-09 and £486,000 in 2009-10. The figure for where the transactions will not benefit persons, entities 2009-10 excludes expenditure by the British Council or bodies referred to in the order or the regulation. which is not yet available. The Government are in continuing discussions with As reported in Statistics on International Development European counterparts about possible amendments (SID), the UK’s imputed share of funding from and additions of entities or individuals to the EU list. multilateral institutions in Libya was £200,000 in 2007-08 and £691,000 in 2008-09. Figures for 2009-10 are not Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool currently available and will be reported in the next addition of SID later this year. The imputed multilateral To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action aid represents the UK’s share of expenditure by they are able to take to assist Eritrean and other the European Union budget, the United Nations asylum seekers evacuated to Malta from Libya; and Development Programme (UNDP) and the Global what discussions they are having with their European Environment Facility (GEF) through our core Union counterparts about the plight of Asian and contributions to these organisations. African nationals trapped in Libya. [HL7449] EU technical and financial co-operation with Libya was suspended in February 2011. Co-operation focused on funding for the EU HIV Action Plan for Benghazi Baroness Verma: We are not aware of any asylum and a national HIV strategy. The EU has also funded seekers having been evacuated from Libya to Malta migration-related activities including co-operation between since the 17 February outbreak of the crisis, but we Libya and Niger on border control, activities of the stand ready to take practical measures to help Malta International Organisation of Migration and the United discharge its responsibilities towards asylum seekers Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. UK who are on its territory. contributions to the EU Budget are non-discretionary European Union leaders discussed the situation at and imposed by the EU treaties. the Extraordinary European Council in Brussels on From 2006 to 2010 UNDP’s programmes in Libya Friday 11 March. An immediate priority has been to focused on mainstreaming the millennium development respond effectively to the humanitarian challenges at goals; encouraging economies and economic performance Libya’s borders to help displaced persons, including to improve service delivery and governance; and human Asian and African nationals, return home. The council resources for sustainable human development. UNDP’s confirmed that ensuring the safe evacuation of those new strategy for Libya from 2011-14 will focus on wishing to flee the fighting remains a priority. The EU strengthening environmental management systems: and member states have mobilised humanitarian aid and institutional capacity to combat HIV-AIDS; and gender are committed to further assist people in Libya and equality. people crossing its borders, in close co-operation with The Global Environment Facility (GEF) funded international and non- governmental organisations, one project in Libya during the requested period, including the United Nations High Commissioner for which focused on national capacity to manage global Refugees and the International Organisation for environmental issues, such as biodiversity, climate change, Migration. The European Council has asked Justice international waters and land degradation. and Home Affairs Ministers to meet and draw up an action plan on migration, ahead of a further discussion Asked by Lord Myners at the June European Council.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether freezing Asked by Lord Hylton orders made in respect of Libyan assets and the movement of funds include those of the Central To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they Bank of Libya and businesses incorporated outside are providing emergency assistance to the United Libya, but known or believed to be owned by Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) Libyans. [HL7413] to aid persons fleeing Libya; and whether they will call on Tunisia and Egypt to co-operate with the UNHCR to the best of their abilities. [HL7470] The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The Libya (Financial Sanctions) Order 2011 (the Order) implemented UN Security Council Baroness Verma: During his 4 March visit to the Resolution 1970. The Order froze the funds, other Tunisian-Libyan border, the Secretary of State for financial assets, and economic resources owned or International Development praised the work of the controlled, directly or indirectly, by the six individuals Tunisian authorities in providing valuable support to listed in the UN Resolution. the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). Subsequent to that, EU Council Regulation 204/2011 He welcomed the Egyptian authorities’ commitment (the Regulation) applied an asset freeze to the funds and co-operation, which was also noted by Rashid and economic resources belonging to, or owned, held Kalikov, the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Libya, or controlled by, the six listed in the resolution, as well during his 10 March visit to Cairo. WA 121 Written Answers[21 MARCH 2011] Written Answers WA 122

The UK was the first country to respond to the actual anti-social behaviour; if so, how; on what UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) and timescale; and whether they will place all reports in International Organisation for Migration (IOM) appeal the Library of the House. [HL7281] for financial and logistical support to help repatriate people on the Libya-Tunisia border. For example, in The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville- response to a UNHCR request, the Department for Jones): HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) International Development (DfID) has sent 38,000 and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) blankets and 1,400 tents, providing shelter for up to have no plans to specifically investigate and report on 10,000 people stranded at the Libya-Tunisia border. In the installation and use of databases, including proposed addition, two DfID Air Logistics Officers have joined databases, by the South Wales Police and their partner UNHCR’s Humanitarian Evacuation team to help members for recording alleged and actual anti-social the smooth running of the airlift operation. We continue behaviour. to work with the UNCHR to get help to those in need and to make sure that we have the right supplies and However, South Wales Police are taking part in the people in position to be able to react to all eventualities. anti-social behaviour call handling and casework management trials which were launched by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Crime Prevention Northern Ireland Office: Taxis on 4 January and which are supported by the Home Question Office, ACPO and HMIC. The trials will explore better ways to respond to calls and identify and protect Asked by Lord Laird vulnerable people. This includes installing IT systems to enhance sharing of information on cases between To ask Her Majesty’s Government what taxis agencies, but not establishing new databases. An were used by the staff of the Northern Ireland assessment of how this improves service delivery will Office during the week commencing 21 February be published in due course. 2011; by whom; at what cost; and to where.[HL7463] Asked by Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Shutt of Greetland: The details of taxi bookings To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will made for official departmental business during week ensure that lessons learnt from the failure of penetration commencing 21 February 2011 are as follows: testing of the anti-social behaviour management Belfast (residential address) to Belfast City Airport—10 database developed by South Wales Police will be Belfast (residential address) to Stormont House made available to other police forces in England Belfast—6 and Wales. [HL7384] Belfast City Airport to Stormont House—5 Belfast Central rail station to Stormont House—2 Baroness Neville-Jones: We are informed by South Windsor House to Stormont House—1 Wales Police that, as part of the development of a new database to provide enhanced information on reports Total costs to date are £151.20. of anti-social behaviour, they undertook penetration testing in January 2011. Penetration testing is a standard Parliamentary Commissioner for security check during the development of new IT systems before they go live. This test identified some Administration issues relating to control of access by approved users Question of the database, which had not been populated. These Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill issues have now been addressed and the database passed a second test in February 2011. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they South Wales Police are taking part in the anti-social will introduce legislation to permit members of the behaviour call handling and casework management public to refer complaints directly to the Parliamentary trials announced by the Home Office on 4 January, Commissioner for Administration. [HL7600] which include using IT to improve sharing of information between local agencies. We will be publishing an Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The position remains the assessment of the trials in due course, and will incorporate same as set out in my answer to the noble Lord of any lessons learned from the testing and development 21 October 2010 (Official Report, WA 199). of the database as required.

Police: Databases Prisoners: Voting Questions Question Asked by Lord Laird Asked by Lord Laird To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether HM To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Her Inspectorate of Constabulary or the Association of Majesty’s Ambassadors and High Commissioners Chief Police Officers will investigate and report on in each of the Council of Europe member states the installation and use of databases, including have provided, or will be asked to provide, details of proposed databases, by the South Wales Police and (a) whether convicted prisoners in those countries their partner members for recording alleged and can vote, (b) if so, what restrictions on types of WA 123 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 124

prisoner they impose, (c) what practical arrangements Lord Shutt of Greetland: The current Government and protocols there are for prisoners voting, and was not involved in the multi-party talks at St Andrews (d) how many voted in recent years; and, if so, in 2006. The St Andrews agreement does not contain whether they will publish the information. [HL7337] any specific reference to transport facilities.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Sudan Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Foreign and Question Commonwealth Office is consulting with its missions in Council of Europe member states on prisoner voting Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool arrangements. When consultations are complete I will place information in the Library of the House on the To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment topics raised by the noble Lord. they have made of reports of fighting between the Misseriya and Dinka Ngok tribes in Abyei, Sudan. [HL7451] Railways: Freight Question The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Asked by Lord Dykes Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): We are very concerned at the recent clashes in the Abyei region, including To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they those on 27 and 28 February 2011 and 1 and 2 March will reconsider the decision to close down all freight 2011 between northern and southern groups in the facilities grants to rail freight operators in the United area. We judge that such violence is likely to continue Kingdom. [HL7650] in the absence of renewed political commitment to reach a solution on the future of Abyei which is Earl Attlee: There are no plans to reconsider the acceptance to all parties. We urge both parties to the decision to close the Freight Facilities Grant scheme comprehensive peace agreement to intensify their efforts in England. towards this goal. Decisions on the continuation of the scheme in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly Government Tobacco respectively. Question Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon Shipping: Ship-to-ship Transfers Question Toask Her Majesty’s Government what consultation they have had with the tobacco industry about the Asked by Lord Condon proposals on the display of cigarettes and other To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their tobacco products. [HL7579] timescale for responding to the recently closed consultation on ship-to-ship transfers of oil off the The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, coast of Southwold, Suffolk. [HL7752] Department of Health (Earl Howe): The department has carried out two public consultations relating to the Earl Attlee: The Shipping Minister, the honourable display of tobacco products, which received replies Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), is from the tobacco industry. considering the representations which have been made Consultation on the Future of Tobacco Control published and will take a decision at the earliest opportunity. in May 2008 included options for dealing with the display of tobacco products. St Andrews Agreement In October 2009, the department published the Questions Consultation on Proposed Tobacco Control Regulations for England (under the Health Bill 2009). Copies of Asked by Lord Laird both documents have already been placed in the Library. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the No formal consultations have taken place on this St Andrews agreement included agreement to build topic with the tobacco industry since the coalition a new road of any type from the Irish border to Government came to office. Londonderry. [HL7563]

Lord Shutt of Greetland: The St Andrews agreement Transport: Appraisals did not include an agreement about building such a Questions road. Asked by Lord Bradshaw Asked by Lord Laird To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there New Approach to Transport Appraisal will be amended was any official discussion of transport facilities to identify separately small time savings to enable from the Irish border to Londonderry at the multi-party Ministers to judge to what extent the appraisal of a talks at St Andrews in 2006. [HL7564] scheme is dependent on them. [HL7572] WA 125 Written Answers[21 MARCH 2011] Written Answers WA 126

Earl Attlee: We are still considering whether small The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth journey time changes should be separately reported as Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): The Government part of our work to reform the way transport projects do not plan to make representations to the Government are assessed and funding prioritisation decisions are of Turkey on the blocking of transmissions of Roj TV, made. An announcement on the reforms will be made or on attacks made on the website of Firat News in due course. Agency. Our embassy in Ankara raises issues relating to freedom of the media in the context of wider Asked by Lord Bradshaw discussions on human rights with its Turkish counterparts. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what time Freedom of expression and freedom of the media values for work travel and other travel are applied remain key areas for reform in Turkey in the context of to (a) car users, (b) train users, (c) tram users, (d) its EU accession process. The EU progress report for bus users, (e) cyclists, and (f) pedestrians in the New 2010 addressed the issue, and makes clear that while Approach to Transport Appraisal. [HL7573] there have been some positive developments, more work is needed before Turkey fulfils the EU criteria on respect for freedom of expression and the media. Earl Attlee: The Department for Transport’s standard values of working time for different modes of travel Asked by Lord Hylton are published as table 1 of WebTAG unit 3.5.6. They can be retrieved from our web-site at: http://www.dft. To ask Her Majesty’s Government what gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.5.6.php#012. representations they will make to the Government of Turkey about the importance of ensuring access Due to insufficient data on the characteristics of to communication in the run-up to the forthcoming tram users, we do not specify a value for this mode. election. [HL7469] Instead, tram scheme promoters can use an all-mode average value, or agree an alternative approach based on local data with the department. Alternative approaches Lord Howell of Guildford: The Government do not are reviewed and approved by the department on a plan to make representations to the Government of case-by-case basis. Turkey about the importance of ensuring access to communication in the run-up to the forthcoming election. Following Turkey’s general election in 2007, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Trees (OSCE) issued a report which assessed that “the elections Question demonstrated the resilience of the election process in Asked by Lord Laird Turkey, characterized by pluralism and a high level of public confidence [and that] Turkey’s diverse and vibrant To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to media provided broadly balanced coverage of electoral the Written Answer by Lord Henley on 31 January issues, enabling voters to make informed choices”. (WA 242), what are the sources of data on the street The British Government supported this assessment. sapling survival rates provided by the London Tree Our embassy in Ankara will follow events in the and Woodland Grants Scheme, the Greater London run-up to the election closely, and we expect Turkey to Authority’s Street Trees scheme and the Community fulfil its OSCE commitments, including those on Forests in Greater Manchester and Greater Liverpool; democracy and freedom of the media. and whether they will commission research on A further OSCE report, published in January 2010, vandalism rates and deterrence. [HL7516] made recommendations—echoed by the 2010 EU progress report—to improve access to the internet and media The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, freedom. Our embassy in Ankara regularly raises issues Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs relating to media freedom in the context of wider (Lord Henley): Information about street sapling survival discussions on human rights with its Turkish counterparts. rates is not recorded in any consistent or comprehensive way. Survival rates referred to in the previous Answer Uganda were provided by project staff who have many years of Question urban tree-planting experience. There are no plans to commission research into Asked by Lord Ashcroft vandalism rates and deterrence at this time. To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will reduce budget support for Uganda in the light of the increase in government spending prior to the Turkey last general election. [HL7404] Questions Asked by Lord Hylton Baroness Verma: The Government have not yet taken a decision on budget support for Uganda for To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they financial year 2011-12 and beyond. What we do know will make representations to the Government of is that the process for making this decision will be Turkey about (a) the alleged blocking of the satellite more rigorous in the future, and will follow two basic transmissions of Roj TV, and (b) attacks on the steps. The first is to assess the Government of Uganda’s website of Firat News Agency, Amsterdam.[HL7468] commitment to the following: poverty reduction and WA 127 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 128 the millennium development goals; respecting human GEO officials also champion measures to combat rights and other international obligations; improving violence against women on behalf of the UK in a public financial management, promoting good governance number of European and international arenas, including and transparency and fighting corruption; and the annual UN Commission on the Status of Women, strengthening domestic accountability. The second step the Commonwealth Women’s Affairs meetings, the will involve assessing whether budget support can EU and the Council of Europe. achieve better results and value for money than other instruments. Visas Violence against Women Overseas Question Question Asked by Lord Laird Asked by Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps the mean salaries for Indian nationals in each of the Government Equalities Office can take to contribute Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) to tackling violence against women overseas. categories 1136, 2131, 2132 and 3131 from the tier 2 (intra-company transfer) visa certificates of sponsorship [HL7754] data for the total of the past six months of 2010; and what percentage and how many such nationals Baroness Verma: The Government Equalities Office had a salary lower than the United Kingdom 2010 (GEO) is supporting the work of my honourable Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Equalities, full-time annual salaries for each of those SOC Lynne Featherstone MP, in her role as the overseas category codes. [HL7512] champion on violence against women and girls. This involves working closely with the Home Office, the Department for International Development and the The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville- Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure cross- Jones): The information requested can be seen in the government co-ordination in this policy area. attached table.

Number with a salary lower % with a salary lower than SOC code Mean salary ASHE mean salary than ASHE ASHE

1136 £50,307.34 £52,412 627 70.69% 2131 £52,080.24 £50,681 326 61.98% 2132 £38,072.37 £39,353 5428 66.85% 3131 £38,703.82 £33,592 287 64.35%

Number of “Assigned”Certificates of Sponsorship (COS) for the period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 for specified nationalities: Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Peru, Surinam, and Venezuela Dominican Occupation Bolivia Colombia Cuba republic Ecuador Guyana Haiti Jamaica Peru Surinam Venezuela Total

1111 Officials, senior in ------†---† national government 1112 Directors/chief - †------55 executives of major organisations 1121 Managers, - 5------5 production, works and maintenance 1122 Managers, ------†† construction 1123 Managers, mining - †------† and energy 1131 Managers and - †-----†---† chartered secretaries, financial 1132 Managers, - 5†-5---5-520 marketing and sales 1133 Managers, - †------†† purchasing 1135 Managers, † †------†5 personnel, training and industrial relations 1136 Managers, ------5--5 information and communication technology 1142 Managers, - †------†5 customer care 1151 Managers, - -†------† financial institution WA 129 Written Answers[21 MARCH 2011] Written Answers WA 130

Number of “Assigned”Certificates of Sponsorship (COS) for the period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 for specified nationalities: Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Peru, Surinam, and Venezuela Dominican Occupation Bolivia Colombia Cuba republic Ecuador Guyana Haiti Jamaica Peru Surinam Venezuela Total

1152 Managers, office ------† - - † † 1163 Managers, retail - †------† and wholesale 1174 Managers, ------5---5 security 1184 Managers, social ------†---† services 1185 Managers, ------†---† residential and day care managers 1221 Managers, hotel ------†---† and accommodation 1223 Managers, - †-----†--†5 restaurant and catering 1225 Managers, leisure ------5---5 and sports 1239 Managers and ------†---† proprietors in other services n.e.c. 2111 Chemists (not ------†† pharmacists) 2112 Biological ------†---† scientists and biochemists 2113 Physicists, † 5------1010 geologists and meteorologists 2121 Engineers, civil † 10 ------10 25 2122 Engineers, † ---†-----†5 mechanical 2123 Engineers, - -†-----†--† electrical 2124 Engineers, ------5---5 electronics 2125 Engineers, - †------55 chemical 2126 Engineers, design - †------† and development 2127 Engineers, - ---†---†-55 production and process 2128 Engineers, - †------55 planning and quality control 2129 Engineering - 5--5--††-1020 professionals n.e.c. 2131 IT strategy and - †------†† planning professionals 2132 IT, software -5-----†5- 515 professionals 2211 Medical - -†----5--510 practitioners e.g. doctors and surgeons 2212 Psychologists - - † ------† 2213 Pharmacists/ ------†---† pharmacologists 2311 Teacher/lecturer -5-----5†- †10 in higher education 2312 Teacher/lecturer - ----†-----† in further education 2314 Teacher, ----††-50--†55 secondary education 2315 Teacher, primary ------†--†5 and nursery education 2316 Teacher, special - †------† needs 2319 Teaching ------†--55 professionals (teachers) n.e.c. 2321 Researchers, †15† -5 ---5- †25 scientific 2322 Researchers, † †- - -†-†-- -5 social science WA 131 Written Answers[LORDS] Written Answers WA 132

Number of “Assigned”Certificates of Sponsorship (COS) for the period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 for specified nationalities: Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Peru, Surinam, and Venezuela Dominican Occupation Bolivia Colombia Cuba republic Ecuador Guyana Haiti Jamaica Peru Surinam Venezuela Total

2329 Researchers n.e.c. 5 10 5 - - - - - † - † 20 2411 Lawyers, - †-----†---† solicitors, judges and coroners 2419 Legal ------†† professionals n.e.c. 2421 Accountants, - -†-†--††-510 chartered and certified 2422 Accountants, ------††--† management 2423 Consultants, †10- -† --†5- 525 actuaries, economists, statisticians 2431 Architects - † ------† 2441 Administrator, ------†---† public service 2442 Social workers ------10 - - - 10 2444 Clergy † - - - 5 - † 5 † - - 10 3112 Technicians, ------5---5 electrical/electronics 3113 Technicians, - 10------†15 engineering 3131 Technicians, IT - †-----†---5 operations 3132 Technicians, IT - †------† user support 3211 Nurses - - - - - 15 - 30 - - - 45 3214 Medical -††----††- -5 radiographers 3221 Physiotherapists ------† - - † † 3231 Youth and 515- -5 --55- -35 community workers 3411 Artists - † 20 - - - - 5 - - - 25 3412 Authors, writers - † - - - - - † - - - † 3413 Actors, - 10 † † - 15 - 205 † - † 240 entertainers 3414 Dancers and † 55 130 - - - - 5 5 - 5 210 choreographers 3415 Musicians 10 130 150 - 5 - 15 230 5 - 200 745 3416 Arts officers, † † 25 - - - - 10 - - 20 55 producers and directors 3431 Journalists, ------†† newspaper and periodical editors 3432 Broadcasting ------†---† associate professionals 3433 Public relations ------†† officers 3434 Photographers - † - - - - - † † - 10 15 and audio-visual equipment operators 3441 Sports players - † - - † † - 5 - - - 10 3442 Sports coaches, ------†---† instructors and officials 3449 Sports and fitness - 5------†--5 occupations n.e.c. 3531 Estimators, - †------† valuers and assessors 3532 Brokers - † - - - † - † - - - 5 3533 Insurance - †------† underwriters 3534 Finance and - 5------5-†10 investment analysts/ advisers 3537 Financial and - †------† accounting technicians 3539 Business associate - †------†5 professionals n.e.c. 3541 Buyers and - †------† purchasing officers WA 133 Written Answers[21 MARCH 2011] Written Answers WA 134

Number of “Assigned”Certificates of Sponsorship (COS) for the period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 for specified nationalities: Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Peru, Surinam, and Venezuela Dominican Occupation Bolivia Colombia Cuba republic Ecuador Guyana Haiti Jamaica Peru Surinam Venezuela Total

3543 Marketing - †------†-†5 associate professionals 3562 Personnel and ------†--†† industrial relations officers 4112 Administrative ------†--† officers/assistants, Civil Service 4131 Clerks and - †----†-†--5 assistants, filing and other records 4134 Clerks, transport ------†--† and distribution 4150 General office - ---†------† assistants/clerks 5221 Metal machining - ---†------† setters and setter- operators 5244 Engineers, TV, ------†---† video and audio 5315 Carpenters and ------†† joiners 5434 Chefs, cooks † ------5 - - - 5 6115 Care assistants †15- - -†-†5- †25 and home carers 6122 Childminders and ------†--1520 related occupations 6124 Educational ------†---† assistants (teaching assistants) 6211 Sports and leisure ------5--5 assistants 6221 Hairdressers, - †------† barbers 6231 Housekeepers and † ------† related occupations 9233 Cleaners, - ---†---†--5 domestics 9241 Security guards ------†† and related occupations 9999 Not stated † 75 † 5 40 † - 30 10 - 5 165 Total 35 430 340 5 75 35 20 665 75 - 380 2,060

Figures are rounded to nearest five. Data source: points-based system database (PBS). † Indicates one or two. The figures quoted are not provided under National Statistics - Indicates nil. protocols and have been derived from local management Because of rounding, figures may not add up to totals shown. information and are therefore provisional and subject to change.

Monday 21 March 2011

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Col. No. Col. No. Armed Forces Pay Review Body ...... 35 EU: Energy Council ...... 42

Banks: Big Society Bank...... 35 Health and Safety ...... 43

Bill of Rights ...... 36 Immigration...... 44

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide International Criminal Court ...... 45 Act 2007 ...... 37 NHS: Foreign Nationals...... 45 Correction to Commons Oral Answer ...... 37 NHS Pay Review Body ...... 47

Crime: Drink and Drug Driving ...... 38 Prison Service Pay Review Body ...... 47

Cycling ...... 40 School Teachers’ Review Body...... 48

Employment: Flexible Working ...... 40 Senior Salaries Review Body...... 49

Energy: Feed-in Tariffs ...... 41 Transport: Urban Congestion...... 51

Monday 21 March 2011

ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. Apprenticeships ...... 101 Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 ...... 111

Armed Forces: Aircraft...... 102 Freedom of Information Act 2000...... 111

Armed Forces: Joint Military Exercise...... 102 Government: Contracts ...... 112

Burma...... 103 Government Departments: Energy Certificates...... 112

Consumer Prices Index ...... 104 Government: Efficiency Review ...... 113

Crime: Burglary ...... 104 Government: Legislation ...... 114

Criminal Justice: Women ...... 105 Health: Research...... 114

Donkeys...... 106 Higher Education: Funding ...... 114

Education: Dance and Drama ...... 106 Higher Education: Transport...... 116

Education: Overseas Students...... 107 International Planned Parenthood Federation...... 116

English Parliament...... 107 Iraq...... 117

Equal Pay ...... 108 Ivory Coast...... 117

EU: Legislation...... 108 Legal Aid...... 118

EU: UK Membership ...... 108 Libya ...... 118

Father James Chesney...... 109 Northern Ireland Office: Taxis...... 121

Finance: Short Selling...... 109 Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ...... 121

Financial Services Authority...... 110 Police: Databases ...... 121

Fluoridation ...... 110 Prisoners: Voting...... 122 Col. No. Col. No. Railways: Freight ...... 123 Transport: Appraisals ...... 124

Shipping: Ship-to-ship Transfers...... 123 Trees ...... 125 Turkey...... 125 St Andrews Agreement ...... 123 Uganda...... 126 Sudan...... 124 Violence against Women Overseas ...... 127

Tobacco ...... 124 Visas ...... 128 NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS

Col. No. Col. No. [HL7187] ...... 118 [HL7541] ...... 108

[HL7281] ...... 122 [HL7542] ...... 101

[HL7337] ...... 123 [HL7543] ...... 101

[HL7384] ...... 122 [HL7544] ...... 101

[HL7404] ...... 126 [HL7549] ...... 114

[HL7413] ...... 119 [HL7551] ...... 116

[HL7414] ...... 117 [HL7563] ...... 123

[HL7415] ...... 110 [HL7564] ...... 123

[HL7416] ...... 110 [HL7567] ...... 105

[HL7429] ...... 111 [HL7572] ...... 124

[HL7442] ...... 111 [HL7573] ...... 125

[HL7449] ...... 120 [HL7578] ...... 107

[HL7450] ...... 117 [HL7579] ...... 124

[HL7451] ...... 124 [HL7586] ...... 102

[HL7456] ...... 108 [HL7597] ...... 118

[HL7459] ...... 109 [HL7600] ...... 121

[HL7460] ...... 109 [HL7612] ...... 116

[HL7463] ...... 121 [HL7614] ...... 118

[HL7467] ...... 117 [HL7623] ...... 112

[HL7468] ...... 125 [HL7625] ...... 112

[HL7469] ...... 126 [HL7629] ...... 113

[HL7470] ...... 120 [HL7630] ...... 113

[HL7479] ...... 114 [HL7631] ...... 113

[HL7482] ...... 106 [HL7632] ...... 113

[HL7505] ...... 103 [HL7633] ...... 113

[HL7512] ...... 128 [HL7634] ...... 112

[HL7515] ...... 104 [HL7640] ...... 106

[HL7516] ...... 125 [HL7650] ...... 123

[HL7520] ...... 108 [HL7652] ...... 109

[HL7522] ...... 102 [HL7654] ...... 109 Col. No. Col. No. [HL7655] ...... 110 [HL7752] ...... 123

[HL7704] ...... 111 [HL7754] ...... 127

[HL7708] ...... 107 [HL7767] ...... 109

[HL7736] ...... 114 [HL7829] ...... 104 Volume 726 Monday No. 128 21 March 2011

CONTENTS

Monday 21 March 2011 Questions Agriculture: Pigs...... 447 HMS “Endurance” ...... 450 Somalia ...... 452 Disabled People: Employment ...... 454 Wreck Removal Convention Bill First Reading ...... 456 Pensions Bill [HL] Order of Consideration Motion ...... 457 Marine Licensing (Licence Application Appeals) Regulations 2011 Marine Licensing (Notices Appeals) Regulations 2011 Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 Motion to Approve ...... 457 Libya Statement...... 457 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Committee (2nd Day)...... 475 European Council Decision: EUC Report Motion to Approve ...... 527 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Committee (2nd Day) (Continued) ...... 547 Written Statements...... WS 35 Written Answers...... WA 101