House of Lords Reform

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

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

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

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

[Lord Goodlad]

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

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

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

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

[Lord Higgins]

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

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

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

[Lord Higgins]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

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

[Lord Haskel]

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

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

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

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

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

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

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

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

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

Business of the House

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in moving the Motion, it may be helpful if I say a few words about the scheduling of business in the next few weeks. The Motion on the Order Paper today seeks leave to bring forward from next week to tomorrow the debate in the name of my noble friend Lady Verma on progress towards meeting the millennium development goal on universal primary education. This proposed change has come about as a result of discussions on the Academies Bill, which the House will begin considering in Committee today.

Last Wednesday, the Chief Whip published Forthcoming Business, which set out three consecutive days for Committee stage on the Academies Bill. I must confess that there was a misunderstanding as to how this came about, which led to some feeling that this was not the optimum way to proceed. As a result, there were further and very constructive discussions between the usual channels, which led to the republication of Forthcoming Business. This revised edition sets out three days for Committee stage on the Academies Bill—today, Wednesday 23 June and Monday 28 June. I am sure that these revised dates will be welcomed by all sides of the House. Furthermore, the usual channels have agreed to take Report stage on Wednesday 7 July.

The usual channels are a vital part of self-regulation in this House and we remain committed to ensuring that they work effectively on behalf of the whole House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the statement and the clarification from the Leader of the House. The usual channels provide a very important function for and within this House, although sometimes some noble Lords think that perhaps the system is too opaque. However, I believe that it works very well. For the smooth running of business and the well-being of the House as a whole, it is crucial that the whole House has confidence in the system. The noble Lord’s statement demonstrates that we agree on the importance of a fair system which respects the role of the Government and the Opposition. I thank the noble Lord.

Motion agreed.

European Council

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I join the Leader of the House, in repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister, in paying tribute to the two soldiers who lost their lives, Trooper Ashley Smith from the Royal Dragoon Guards and the Royal Marine from 40 Commando Royal Marines. As the Prime Minister said, 300 members of our forces have now given their lives in Afghanistan in the service of our country. We pay tribute to their bravery, we honour their sacrifice and our thoughts are with their families. I strongly agree with the Leader about the cause for which our soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan. They are fighting there to keep our streets safe here. That is why the Opposition are united with the Government in support of our troops and their mission. As we approach Armed Forces Day, let us remember all our service men and women, whether they are stationed abroad or at home. Their skill and courage are unsurpassed.

I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. I start by welcoming the continued EU focus and government commitment on two important issues. First, on Iran, I endorse the support for the European Council’s declaration, which again shows that on issues of international concern, we who are EU member states have a bigger impact when we combine our efforts. Does the Leader of the House agree that while the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran remains a matter of utmost concern, the international community is now more united than ever before in searching for a peaceful solution; and that the very act of EU diplomacy that we have seen in recent years has played an important part in this? He says that the Prime Minister tells us that it is time for action, not just words; is there a timetable for further EU action on Iran? Can he confirm the importance, not only of sanctions and diplomatic pressure, but of international engagement with the people of Iran? Will he therefore give an undertaking that the BBC Farsi service will be protected from any cuts in the BBC World Service?

Secondly, I also welcome the strong commitment of the EU summit to meeting the millennium development goals by 2015. The terrible crisis of drought and food shortages in Niger is a vivid reason why there must be international action on development. Will the Prime Minister be a stronger voice in the EU for the whole EU to make development a priority, if his Government continue to prioritise development? Following our Government’s commitment, the European Commission recommended that all EU member states should consider legislating to enshrine the 0.7 per cent aid target, which we established. Will the Government now take forward, in this Session of Parliament, the Bill we introduced to make the 0.7 per cent legally binding?

Is it not the case that you can only be effective in Europe if what you say and do there is matched by what you do and say at home? In that regard, I commend the Leader on the Prime Minister’s reference in his pre-summit article to the shocking inequality of women in many parts of Europe, and the urgent need for change. If the Prime Minister recognises shocking inequality of women elsewhere in Europe, can the Government act on it here? Will the Prime Minister show the rest of Europe that he means at home what he says in Brussels by giving us a commitment that he will implement the Equality Act as soon as possible, and commit to pressing on with the plan to make employers publish their gender pay gap?

I welcome the fact that the summit adopted the European 2020 strategy for growth. The summit said:

“Priority should be given to growth-friendly budgetary consolidation strategies”.

It also said:

“Increasing the growth potential should be seen as paramount to ease fiscal adjustment in the long run”.

In other words, do not undermine growth when you are cutting borrowing and need growth to bring borrowing down. According to the official summit conclusions, one of its main objectives is to,

“unlock the EU’s growth potential, starting with innovation and energy policies”.

That is what the Prime Minister signed up to in Brussels. However, he is doing something rather different at home. On growth, the Leader of the House said that the Government will continue to press for the real stimulus that the European economies need, but the reality from the Government here is very different. How does it help growth to cut business investment support? How does it help unlock the EU’s growth, starting with energy, to cancel the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters to build the next generation of nuclear power stations? Does this not mean that Europe, as well as the UK, will lose out to South Korea and Japan as they take this work forward? On the important question of financial services, we welcome the intention to implement a new system of levies and taxes on financial institutions, and the intention to explore an international financial transactions tax. Will the Government commit to maintaining the UK’s strong leadership in advocating these reforms?

This was the Prime Minister’s first European Council. The Leader of the House, in repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement, says that the Prime Minister believes that this is a Council which delivered good outcomes for Britain. The Prime Minister is no longer the leader of the Opposition, grandstanding to his Back-Benchers. He is now representing our country in Europe, so perhaps it is time for him and the Government as a whole to have a sensible think about continuing to exclude themselves from the grouping of centre-right political leaders. The European People’s Party includes President Sarkozy, Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Prime Ministers of Sweden, Italy and Poland. However, instead of meeting with them to prepare for the summit, the Prime Minister had a meeting with one Polish MEP to prepare for Britain’s contribution to the summit. The election is over. Will the Prime Minister now put aside his pandering to his Europhobic Back-Benchers and agree with his Lib-Dem coalition partners on this vital issue of Europe? That is in Britain’s interests and would be a good outcome for Europe and Britain. We on these Benches invite the Conservatives on the Benches opposite to join the Liberal Democrats on the Benches opposite—and, indeed, we on these Benches—by getting serious about Britain’s interests in Europe and putting practicalities and policies ahead of prejudices and politics. That is what Europe needs from Britain. That is what Britain needs to do in Europe.

Saville Inquiry

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement from the Prime Minister. As he said, it is more than 12 years since the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, set up the Saville inquiry to establish the truth of what happened on what became known as Bloody Sunday. For the 14 families whose loved ones died and the 13 individuals who were injured, for the soldiers and their families, and for all those whose lives would never be the same again as a consequence of Bloody Sunday, this report has been long awaited. There is no doubt that, for all of them and indeed for the future of Northern Ireland, the Saville report is of great consequence. The Leader of the House, in repeating the Statement from the Prime Minister, has described the conclusions of the report as “shocking”. I have not yet had the opportunity to read the report, but it is clear from the Statement that the conclusions of the report are indeed shocking. They are appalling conclusions.

Perhaps I may remind your Lordships’ House of what Tony Blair said to the other place on the day that the House agreed to establish the Saville Inquiry. He said:

“Bloody Sunday was a tragic day for all concerned. We must all wish that it had never happened”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/98; col. 503.]

Perhaps I may also reiterate two further things that Tony Blair pointed to when the inquiry was established: the dignity of the bereaved families whose campaign was about searching for the truth, and the recognition of the thousands of lives that had been lost in Northern Ireland through terrorism.

I also restate our sincere admiration for the way in which our security forces have responded over nearly four decades to terrorism in Northern Ireland. They have operated in difficult and dangerous circumstances and many have lost their lives. Nothing in today’s report can or should diminish the record of service given by so many brave men and women from our Armed Forces.

Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that the setting up of the Saville inquiry was necessary because of the inadequacy of the inquiry concluded by Lord Widgery 11 weeks after Bloody Sunday? The inadequacy of that report deepened the sense of grievance and added to the pain of the families of those who died or were injured. Will the Leader of the House join me in reminding your Lordships’ House that establishing the Saville inquiry to search for the truth played an important part in the peace process, which has done so much to transform Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement? As Tony Blair said in the other place, the aim in setting it up was,

“not to accuse individuals or institutions, or to invite fresh recriminations, but to establish the truth about what happened on that day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/98; col. 503.].

The issue of the considerable cost of this inquiry should not be confused with its value in both establishing the truth and strengthening the peace process.

Because this report is extensive, the Government are seeking in the other place a full day’s parliamentary debate on it. We will in this House wish to reflect on how best your Lordships’ House can consider the report, but I urge the Leader of the House to join me in seeking time in this Chamber for a similar consideration of the report.

The Prime Minister and the Government have had only 24 hours to consider the report. I of course understand that the Government will need to give the report further detailed consideration before they are able to make clear what action they are proposing to take arising out of it. The Leader of the House has said that the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence will report back to the Prime Minister on all the issues involved. But, ahead of that, in terms of the process by which the Government will reach decisions on their next step, can the Leader of the House tell us when he will be in a position to say what, if any, action will be taken in government as a result of the findings of the Saville report; what will be the decision-making processes; and, as the Government take through those actions, whether they will be as transparent as possible commensurate with national security?

The Government have given in their Statement a clear apology. We welcome that and we share in it. Does the Leader of the House agree that this will be of great importance for the families who have grieved all these years, not only for the loss but for the sense of injustice?

I hope that these findings can be a further step towards peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The peace process is a great achievement by the people, as well as the politicians, of Northern Ireland. It is built on the values of fairness, equality, truth and justice. Parliament, not least in agreeing to the Saville inquiry, has played its part. But we must never take for granted the peace process and its foundations. The Belfast agreement, the St Andrews agreement and, of course, this year the Hillsborough Castle agreement are all great milestones in the journey towards a lasting peace. The completion of devolution only a few weeks ago is relatively new and fragile and still requires great care.

The Statement by the Leader of the House says that the Government believe that what happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable—it was wrong. We agree. We agree, too, with the Prime Minister’s view that you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. However, our response to Saville must be as measured as it must be proportionate. We have sought the truth and now we must have understanding and reconciliation. I conclude by hoping that while people will not forget what happened on that day, this report can help them to find a way of both living with the past and looking to the future.

House of Lords: Post-legislative Scrutiny

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues in saying that we are very much in favour of stopping the ministerial merry-go-round in this House.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, pre-legislative scrutiny and post-legislative scrutiny were two of the issues that were raised in the excellent debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in February of this year. At the end of that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that early in the next Parliament a Leader’s Group should be established to look at various procedural issues. Will he tell us when such a group might be established?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is certainly my intention to have discussions with the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition and with the Convenor of the Cross Benches as to how we should progress this and whether, before doing so, we should perhaps have a more general debate on the working practices of the House.

Afghanistan

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I join the Leader of the House, who has spoken on behalf of the Prime Minister, in paying tribute to the two soldiers who have been killed: Private Jonathan Monk of 2nd Battalion The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment and Lance-Corporal Andrew Breeze of 1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment. Our thoughts are with their families and their grief at their loss.

I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement today and for giving me advance notice of it. It is certainly welcome that the Prime Minister and other Ministers have visited Afghanistan so early on in the formation of the Government. I thank him for that and I welcome the decision to increase the operational allowance for our troops in the field. I also welcome the support that he and the Government have shown for our troops. All those who are serving in Afghanistan should know that they have the admiration and respect of all sides of this House and the other place, and indeed of the whole country. I welcome, too, the Government’s continuing commitment to Armed Forces Day on 26 June and make clear our continuing commitment to it.

On the question of our troops’ families, will the coalition Government continue the important work we in government were doing to support the wives, partners and families of all our Armed Forces? It is common ground that our work in Afghanistan needs to bring together security, development and diplomatic efforts. Will the Leader of the House update the House on the discussions the Prime Minister had with President Karzai? I assure him that the Government will have our support to take through a strategy that sees the Afghans strong enough to take responsibility for their own security and prosperity. We on this side of the House welcome the £200 million that the coalition Government have announced for building up the Afghan army, police and civil service. Can he reassure the House that this will not be at the expense of existing programmes? Can he also update noble Lords on discussions the Prime Minister has had with the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and whether they addressed the proposed withdrawal of Canadian forces in 2011?

A stable Afghanistan requires a stable Pakistan. Will the Leader update the House on what discussions the Prime Minister has had with President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani of Pakistan?

I turn now to the Strategic Defence Review. Will the Leader reassure the House that the front line will not be affected? Will the Prime Minister arrange for a Statement to be made to both Houses to explain how he is taking forward this work? Perhaps he would wish to include this in the next quarterly statement.

Will the Prime Minister agree to the commitment we gave to have an annual reception in Downing Street for the families? Has he met the formidable women who lead the Army Families Federation, the Naval Families Federation and the Royal Air Force Families Federation? Will the Prime Minister and all Ministers who are going to a base in theatre find time to meet wives and partners separately?

Can the Leader of the House reaffirm that, despite the challenges we face in Afghanistan, progress has been made? Can he confirm that the Government are continuing the strategy which the United Kingdom has pursued, with our partners in the international coalition, and that it has not changed? If it has changed, can he tell us in what respects? I am sure that all noble and gallant Lords will be as vigilant in respect of the strategy under this Government as they were under the previous Government.

Returning briefly to the issue of spending, in opposition the now Prime Minister and his Defence Secretary argued for a bigger Army and for its expansion by three battalions. Are the Government going ahead with that?

The Strategic Defence Review gives rise to the statements made over the weekend by the Secretary of State for Defence on the future of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence—statements to the media, of course, not to Parliament. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Sir Jock Stirrup and Sir Bill Jeffrey for their public service to the nation? Will he explain to this House the reasons for their departures? Will he confirm that they will both play a role in the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review and remain until it is completed?

I restate our support for the mission in Afghanistan, which is, as the Prime Minister has rightly said, first and foremost to protect our national security. As this is the noble Lord’s first Statement to this House on Afghanistan on behalf of the Prime Minister—and, therefore, the first occasion on which we have responded as the Official Opposition—I assure him that, as the Government proceed to take difficult decisions in the best interests of our mission in Afghanistan and of our troops, they will have our full support.

Special Advisers

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the depths of knowledge of my noble friend never cease to amaze me. I am amazed because I did not know it beforehand and so I am unable to give him a positive answer. However, when he sees what we publish, I think he will be very impressed.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the noble Lord cited the names of various special advisers, but I remind the House that this Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister to have been a special adviser and I am sure that he would agree that, on the whole, they do an excellent job. Does the Leader of the House agree that most Prime Ministers are elected with a firm commitment to reduce the number of special advisers but that, over time, the rhetoric seldom matches the reality? We will be watching the numbers. I am not a betting woman in many cases, but I would bet that those numbers will go in one direction—upwards.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the Leader of the Opposition is right—the Prime Minister has made a firm commitment about the number of special advisers appointed. It will be up to us all to make sure that his resolve is maintained.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I rise to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow. There were moments during the aftermath of the recent general election when it looked as though the entire government might be adjourned until a good deal later than that. But this was avoided and now we have a Lib-Con—or is it a Con-Lib?—coalition, although it is, as yet, far from clear who conned whom.

We heard today the first results of the coalition in the form of the new Government’s legislative programme set out in the gracious Speech. It is my duty to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the main Motion on their most excellent speeches. Before I do so, perhaps I may make my own position clear: I speak as acting Leader of the Opposition until the elections on my Benches have taken place.

It gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for their speeches today; one Conservative, one Lib-Dem—a very coalitionesque pair. Sadly, I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss the Con-Lib coalition with the noble Earl. I look forward to it over tea. Some might regard the noble Earl as perhaps not a natural coalitioner. Some might think that his long espousal in this House of Conservative beliefs and values might make him less warm than others to the idea of being in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, some might think that his many remarks, interventions, points and speeches in your Lordships' House over the past 55 years might have let slip the merest glimpse of opposition not just to those of us on these Benches—whether in Government or in Opposition—but to those on what used to be the Liberal and Liberal Democrat Benches during the whole time of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in this House. What absolute chumps those people must feel now that he is happily chained to his noble friends the Liberal Democrats. These heady days of new politics clearly bring change even to the most conservative of Conservatives.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, has told us, she has a wealth of experience to assist the coalition. Raised in Pakistan, where she attended a convent school, she is well used to cultural challenges. Her long-standing interest in international relations and her work in the Middle East will stand her in good stead, for she is no stranger to conflict resolution.

My second duty is to congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House who I know will be proud to lead the whole House. I also congratulate all those who serve in this Government. Government is an honour, a privilege and a huge responsibility. It is daunting and difficult, but it is a delight. I am grateful also to the Government for continuing to observe the convention of providing a copy of the text of the gracious Speech to the Opposition in advance.

I am even more grateful to the Sunday Telegraph for providing that service even earlier. Leaking such a major statement is usually a sign in politics that the ship of state is in trouble. But I simply cannot believe that the good ship SS “Coalition” can already be in such choppy and unstable waters, built as it is on the rock-solid stability of the astonishingly close policy fit between the two coalition partners on, admittedly minor, issues, such as the economy, Europe, human rights, the environment, military action, nuclear power and many equally trivial matters.

Brutally ignoring both these minor differences and their own manifestos, the new coalition has moved with impressive speed from the moment when, the day after the election, the soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister began to deliver to the Leader of the Conservative Party the election result he could not deliver himself, despite only a few months ago being 24 points ahead in the opinion polls. The Liberal Democrats have driven for Downing Street with a ruthlessness which is familiar to those of us who have fought them at a local level, but which appears to sit oddly with the woolliness with which they are still characterised by some.

We in this House have long known the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as a cheery fellow, the sage of St Albans, full of jokes and cracks, which were mainly, over the years, as the noble Baroness pointed out, at the expense of the Conservative Party. Little could the noble Lord have thought that when the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, said more than a quarter of a century ago that the Liberal Democrats should return to their constituencies and prepare for government it would turn out to be the Liberal Democrats preparing for a Conservative Government.

We feel that this Government business will not be easy for them. You can see from their enthusiastic faces, free of all trace of shame, how fully and joyously they have abandoned their proud and principled history for power, for the warm embrace of government and the many government jobs that Nick Clegg, Vince Cable and Chris Huhne have been given. And why should they not be? The Benches opposite are full of bedfellows as completely natural as those of David Cameron and Nick Clegg themselves. Think of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, or the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. What closer colleagues with more completely congruent attitudes could be imagined?

The noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Strathclyde, were once compared to a well-known make of satnav, but at least TomTom sends you on only one route at a time. The Lib-Con coalition is already showing signs of being all over the place, but if David Cameron and Nick Clegg can be likened to the great Morecambe and Wise, perhaps Tom and Tom could be likened to another great 1970s comic double act, that of Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett—although in the case of Tom and Tom, not so much the Two Ronnies as the Two Tommies.

But while I might jest today, governing this country is a serious business. None of us involved in politics could or should ignore the message we were all given in the result of the general election: no party won and the outcome gave no party a mandate to govern our country. It produced a hung Parliament that is taking and will take a considerable amount of adjustment to get used to. The Conservative Party has long considered itself to be the natural party of government. We shall see how natural the Conservatives feel it to be now that they are in government with a party setting out, on behalf of both parties, the kind of programme of constitutional reform already mapped out by the Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps the new shared enthusiasm derives from the fact that the constitutional changes can be relatively inexpensive in monetary terms.

We shall see, too, how natural the Liberal Democrats find it to be a party of government. I suspect that this will be at least as large a cultural change for them as it will be for the Conservatives, sitting alongside a party which in many ways is considerably further to the left than the left of the Labour Party. But the Liberal Democrats will have to realise that they cannot be fish and fowl; they cannot be in government and in opposition. The attitude they have tried to take on the issue of Short money in the Commons and its equivalent in this House shows that they have not yet made that leap.

Government is a serious business, and so too is opposition. Good government benefits from strong opposition. We will be a principled and reasonable Opposition; we will be a confident Opposition; we will be a rigorous and vigorous Opposition, and we will hold this Government to account. But in this House politics, although important, is not everything. Much of what we do and how we work crosses party boundaries and the boundaries of those not in political parties at all. I am sure that there will continue to be issues in relation to this House which will best be dealt with by the political parties and the Cross Benches working together. So, as well as opposing the Government when we believe that they are not acting in the interests of the country, we will work with them and the Cross Benches on these issues.

We look forward to dealing with the range of issues in the Government’s legislative programme as set out in the gracious Speech. I would be grateful if, in his reply, the Leader of the House will indicate how many and which Bills are likely to be Lords starters. There will be big issues to tackle, such as some of the cuts announced yesterday by the coalition—seen until a few short weeks ago by the Liberal Democrats as wholly wrong, but seen by these Benches as wrong then and wrong now. They are wrong for the economy, wrong for the recovery and wrong for the country. For example, up to 80,000 youth jobs could go as a result of cuts in the future jobs fund. This is somewhat at odds with the proposals on welfare reform announced in the gracious Speech, which is supposed to be about getting people back to work.

Then there is the constitutional programme claimed by the Deputy Prime Minister to be the greatest piece of democratic reform since the great Reform Act of 1832. Over half of the population of this country who secured the franchise in the period since then—women, they are called—might take a different view, but after a pretty much all-male election and with the coalition Government being run pretty much as a boys’ club, women in this country might just prefer to differ, just as they might prefer to differ over the recent announcements in respect of rape and anonymity, which is a truly retrograde step for abused women.

I would mention two further specific issues, the first of which is the appointment of Peers. The coalition says that “in the interim”, appointments will be made to this House,

“with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election”.

All political parties? Although the BNP did not win a single seat in the election we have just had, it won more votes than a number of other parties which did secure parliamentary representation. Perhaps this is merely a self-interested way of upping the numbers of the Lib Dems in this House.

There is a serious constitutional matter lurking in this point. The working assumption of this House is that the Government of the day should not have a majority. For the House to carry out its proper function of scrutinising and revising legislation brought forward by the Government of the day, the Government of the day cannot and must not command a majority in this House. That should be and has been the case on the Floor of the Chamber and in Committee. Today the coalition already has a large majority in this House. That, I know, is already causing concern in a number of areas, in the House and beyond. The concern would be deeper and wider if the coalition pursued, through the appointment of Peers, a House which would see that already large majority increased still further.

Like the coalition’s proposals for boundary changes and constituency reorganisation in the Commons, these proposals are not the new politics. They are, in fact, pretty old politics, pretty discredited politics, and smack to many of a political fix to benefit those in power. We will oppose them. The convention that the Government should not have a majority in this House is an important—a fundamental—part of the way in which this House works.

So, too, is another convention—the Salisbury convention. Like all such conventions, the definition of the Salisbury/Addison convention is not necessarily clear or agreed but its purpose and effect are unquestionably both—for this unelected House eventually to give the Government of the day, whatever their political complexion, their business. For the purposes of the convention, the definition of the Government’s business is equally clear: it is the programme of the Government as set out in their manifesto.

Where does that now stand? The process of negotiation of which the two parties opposite are so proud has seen the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties not take a scalpel to their manifestos but take great swingeing lunges at them with political machetes. The two parties talk of new circumstances, new politics and a new age. If new circumstances, new politics and a new age mean that the manifestos of the parties opposite are no longer worth the paper they were printed on, what does this mean for the Salisbury convention? These and many other issues are matters for the future, not for this day, but they are important. I give the Benches opposite fair warning: we on these Benches will not allow you to trample over these matters for your own political benefit, your own political gain.

The Labour Party is now the only Opposition in this Parliament to the new coalition Government. We did not seek this role—we wanted the outcome of the election to be very different, as the noble Earl said—but we will not shirk it either; we will carry it out properly. We will be an effective Opposition but we will not oppose for the sake of it; that is not what the public want. Opinion polls showed that many people wanted a hung Parliament and the electorate duly delivered it. But polls showed, too, that people want a strong, decisive Government and the coalition is the answer of the parties opposite. We will wait to see if the two conflicting positions can be bridged.

For our part, as the Opposition, we will seek to illuminate, expose, criticise and harry and, where appropriate, to co-operate, help and support. We believe that, sooner or later, this coalition will not hold despite the efforts to fix the Commons. Its differences are all too palpable; its divisions are fundamental. In this House, where the coalition is led by the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McNally, sooner or later—just like the two Ronnies—the two Tommies will have to part; they will have to pursue solo careers and solo programmes. The Government have said that they stand for freedom, fairness and responsibility. These are principles with which the whole country would agree. We will play our full part in ensuring that they live up to them.

I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.