Royal Bank of Scotland: LIBOR

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I have already given way once. Tucker is saying one thing and Diamond is saying another, so one or other of them must be lying. On the outcome—

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

When two noble Lords are trying to speak at the same time one really ought to give way to the other. They are both from the Labour Party so perhaps they ought to decide among themselves.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

Will the Minister confirm that the legal provisions for the offences of conspiracy to defraud and false accounting are sufficiently wide to cover most, if not all, of the wrongdoing in this field?

Wales: Barnett Formula

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, tomorrow we have a Question on the behaviour of the House, and I would not want to use this as a bad example. We have time for one more Peer, and I think that it should be the noble Lord, Lord Richard.

Debt

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 29th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, we have not heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches, so perhaps we can now.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, the Government have stated repeatedly that reducing the deficit must take priority over reform of the Barnett formula. Can the Minister tell us whether Treasury discussions with the Government in Wales have included consideration of a temporary mechanism—the so-called Barnett floor—which, although it would not solve the problem, would at least alleviate the immediate widening of the unfairness in the funding of Wales?

Scotland Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, before continuing the Committee stage of the Bill, I should like to ask my noble and learned friend for some information about the progress that has been made on securing the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament.

I should also like once again to complain about the fact that this Scotland Bill is being considered on a Thursday, when Members of this House who live in Scotland generally travel north. This matter has been raised previously. When I have raised it with my colleagues, I have been told that the Opposition have requested it. It is deeply inconvenient. I know that a number of colleagues have been unable to participate as a result.

I should also like to complain also about the time which has been made available for consideration of the amendments. All the amendments that I have tabled, and I have quite a number, relate to matters which were not considered in the House of Commons. All of them raise relatively serious points. I read on the groupings list that we will sit until the business is completed. I have plenty of stamina, but I would suggest that debating these matters relating to Scotland—we will of course try to expedite them—late on a Thursday evening is very unsatisfactory, especially when we are talking about an important constitutional Bill many of whose issues were not addressed in the other place where the Bill was subject to the usual guillotine procedure.

I return to the main point on which I feel the Committee should be advised, which is where we have got to on the question of the legislative consent Motion from the Scottish Parliament. This is important. Throughout the proceedings in relation to the introduction of new taxes in Scotland, my honourable friend David Gauke, the Treasury Minister, rested on the fact that a legislative consent Motion for the Bill had been passed by the Scottish Parliament, saying that,

“any future devolution must happen with the wholehearted consent of the Scottish Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/11; col. 70.]

All the consideration of the Bill by the other place was on the basis that it had the support of the Scottish Parliament, but that is no longer the case.

There was a legislative consent Motion passed by the Scottish Parliament in March 2001. That is the legislative consent Motion which was noted on the Bill’s formal entry to this House. Indeed, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill state at paragraph 8:

“A further Legislative Consent Motion on additional amendments will be debated later in the legislative process”.

That referred to amendments to the Bill after consent by the Scottish Parliament. Since then, there has been an election in Scotland and there is a new Administration led by Mr Salmond. The committee of the Scottish Parliament, meeting on 13 December 2011, which was a year and one month after the First Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, was unable to recommend that the Parliament pass a legislative consent Motion on the Bill until the Bill had been amended in line with the committee’s recommendations. It is of course for Mr Alex Salmond to table a Motion for legislative consent, which he has consistently refused to do.

I think I am entitled to ask my noble and learned friend what is going on here. The other place considers the Bill on the basis of a legislative consent Motion which no longer applies, with a Minister saying that we could not do this without the consent of the Scottish Parliament; at an earlier stage of the Bill, we were assured that negotiations were continuing with the Scottish Parliament and that Ministers had every confidence that they would have legislative consent; and now, today, we are about to embark on considering bringing in revolutionary tax powers for the Scottish Parliament and we still do not know whether we have a legislative consent Motion. What is the status of this and what is the Government’s position? Is the Government’s position as David Gauke told the other place, that any future devolution must happen with the wholehearted consent of the Scottish Parliament, and why are we taking so much time, with the House apparently being prepared to sit until the early hours of the morning if necessary, to deal with a Bill which may not meet the requirements of Alex Salmond and the Scottish Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I wonder whether I might add a few words at the risk of being classified yet again as one of the terrible toxic twins along with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.

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

Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. We are speaking on a Motion to go into Committee. Unless the noble Lord has a very different point to make from that of my noble friend, who put it very well, why do we not allow the Minister to respond to that, and then put the Question, go into Committee and deal with the amendments in the normal way? I got the impression from the noble Lord’s first sentence that he was not making a new point but simply supporting my noble friend.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

If the noble Lord waited a little longer, he might find out exactly what I was going to say. It is always a good idea to sit and listen, rather than anticipate what someone is going to say and jump up. I used to represent the Leader of the House. I looked after his interests. I made sure that, as a resident of Mauchline, he was well looked after. I hope that he will give me some respect for having looked after his interests for 26 years, a not inconsiderable period of time, and allow me to speak.

I want to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has said. I agree with him in relation to sitting on a Thursday, which is another mischief that seems to have been done. I also want to raise something which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, did not raise; that is, the lack of time between Committee stage and Report stage. We have only one weekend between the two. How are we going to be able properly to formulate amendments between Committee stage and Report stage? I am also concerned about the fact that the second day of the Report stage is 28 March. This time, instead of choosing a Thursday, the Government have chosen the day before we go into Recess. It is rather like after the Lord Mayor’s procession when the dust cart comes along to clean up—we are being treated as an afterthought.

The most serious issue concerns the sequence of events for dealing with this legislation as between here and the Scottish Parliament. We are rushing it through and dealing with it quickly in Committee—we shall deal with it even more speedily on Report—and yet the Scotland Bill Committee reported on 13 December 2011 and that report has not even appeared on the agenda of the Scottish Parliament. When will it appear? I have been led to believe that the Government may have had some indication that there will be a legislative consent Motion. The Minister should tell us whether that legislative consent Motion is going to be tabled. If the Government know about it, if they have been given any informal indication that it is going to be tabled, we need to know that. It is ridiculous that we should be left in the dark. My noble friend Lord Barnett was left in the dark on a whole range of issues earlier and I have complete sympathy with him. This seems to happen an awful lot.

I hope the Leader of the House will give the House a little more information and allow it an opportunity and a little more time to discuss matters instead of things being done by a little clique behind the scenes.

Eurozone Crisis

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, there is plenty of time. Shall we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and then perhaps from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson?

[Lord Grenfell]

My Lords, given the unrest on the Conservative Benches in the other place, I was tempted to ask whether the Prime Minister had contingency plans for the full recovery and strengthening of the eurozone, but I have a more serious point to make. Does the Minister agree with me that it is extraordinary that the rating agencies disclaim all responsibility for the impact on borrowing costs of their downgradings when a Government like Italy’s are doing their best to solve their problems, and when an institution such as the European Financial Stability Facility—which was downgraded yesterday by Standard & Poor’s—is trying to maintain its lending capacity in advance of the creation of the new ESM, which will take some time? Do these unaccountable agencies just not care whether the impact of what they do is likely to hamper and jeopardise the eurozone recovery?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, if there is a collapse in the eurozone—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there is plenty of time to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Can we hear first from my noble friend Lord Newby, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Peston?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that if there is a collapse in the eurozone, it is highly likely that the IMF will be asked to play a larger role that it has done up to now? What is the Government’s thinking about making further resources available to the IMF in those circumstances?

Euro

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, let us have the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and then, if there is time, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we have not heard from the Cross Benches.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, would the Minister be so good as to give the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, a reply to the question about the euro-plus pact? It may be that the name of this pact is unfortunate, but it is supported by a number of countries which are not in the eurozone, and its objectives relate very closely to our most important objective, which is to further the single market. Would he not agree that the priority now is not drawing up long wish lists for repatriation but working out how we are going to keep our position and keep the integrity of the single market?

Public Expenditure: Deficit Reduction

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords—

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

My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords. Perhaps we can hear from the noble Lord on the Cross Benches and then from my noble friend Lord Newby.

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords, the Minister talks about growth; we hear about the Chancellor sticking to his plans; but we also hear a clamour for Plan B. What is going on around the world is unprecedented; with the EU and the American debt crises there is so much uncertainty. By raising taxes the consumer is absolutely squeezed. As for perception and reality, there is a perception of cutting even though the cutting is not taking place as much as we all think. We all know that public debt was far too high under the previous Government. What are the Government going to do to generate growth?

Monetary Policy Committee

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maples]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we have time for both noble Lords. We can have the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and then the noble Lord, Lord Maples.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that at a time when real incomes are falling, if the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee were to raise interest rates now the principal effect would simply be to reduce growth and increase unemployment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maples]

My Lords, consumer price inflation is only one measure of inflation. May I suggest that if in the run-up to the crash the Monetary Policy Committee had been looking at asset price inflation—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there are two noble Lords trying to speak. We are on 22 minutes and perhaps we should go on to the next Question.

EU: Financial and Monetary Co-ordination

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I would have called the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. However, this happens from time to time as we approach 30 minutes. We have now reached 30 minutes and ought to move on to the next business.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Countess of Mar]

May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is normal to make a speech like this on the Question whether the Bill do now pass?

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

It is unusual, but it is in order. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is about to wrap up his remarks, but he was being constructive and helpful.

[Lord Eatwell]

I am indeed. It is appropriate to thank people, when a Bill has gone through in this co-operative manner, for what has been achieved.

I know that the Government think that this side of the House has taken a somewhat belt-and-braces approach to the independence of the OBR; I am sure that Sir Humphrey, or perhaps Sir Nicholas, does. However, it can do no harm to the OBR’s reputation to have a belt in place when the braces fail.

It is the Government’s responsibility now to ensure that this important experiment in economic governance is a success. We on this side wish Mr Chote and his team well.