| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, prior to the Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Office for National Statistics is to be given independence. Legislation to that effect will come forward during the course of this year. That has been widely welcomed and it is the right thing to do. However, it is wrong perpetually to seek to undermine the opinions of the Office for National Statistics. It serves the country and the economy well.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that monetary policy is enhanced by a robust and independent Governor of the Bank of England, one, for example, who is prepared to speak his mind on the Chancellor's fiddling around with the golden rule? Will he therefore agree that the Bank of England Act would be better if the appointment and, importantly, the reappointment of the Governor were in the hands not of the Government, but of an independent body?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the appointment of the Governor is a Crown appointment undertaken on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that that has served the system well to date. I reject any assertion that there has been fiddling with the figures. It is important that the Governor of the Bank of England
11 Jan 2006 : Column 162
is able to express robust views. This one certainly has. That is part of the independence and credibility of the system that we have.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, is it not the case that not only the statutes of the European Central Bank but also the statutes of the American Fed state that once price stability has been taken into account, other policies should be supported, in the case of the American Fed, for instance, to reduce unemployment? Surely, the case being made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is that once price stability has been maintained, it is open to the MPC to aid and abet government policies in these other areas.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it is right that the Federal Reserve has a slightly wider remit than the Bank of England or the ECB, but I stress that, by its focus on price stability, the bank is supporting the other key components of government policy. That is manifest in what has happened in the success of the economy, in growth and in employment levels. The Bank of England is doing its job in this regard and no adjustment to the Act is necessary.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend ignore the always dangerous support of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and recognise that what I was suggesting in no way undermines the Act? The Act specifically states, "subject to that"—namely, getting the rate of inflation right—it should consider the Government's economic policy. Will my noble friend emphasise that that is the case?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am happy to emphasise that that is what the Act states. There is no suggestion that the Bank of England is not aware of that or has not had regard to it in the conduct of its operations.
Royal Succession: Primogeniture
2.58 pm
Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, it is not right to have gender discrimination, including in the choice of the succession, but there is no groundswell for change. A change would require complex constitutional legislation and consultation with the Commonwealth. We have no plans to embark on such a course.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for an Answer that is not very helpful. Surely, the monarchy should reflect the values of our society. It cannot do that if succession is based upon discrimination against women. Does my noble and
11 Jan 2006 : Column 163
learned friend agree that the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign that women can do the job as well as, and probably better than, men? Is there not a case for change?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have a Queen who is widely admired throughout the world. The heir to the throne is a man, the heir to the throne's son is a man and his second son is a man. Now is not the time to embark on change.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that this issue has been discussed and debated many times, most recently on a Private Member's Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs? The Government's response at that time was exactly the same as the response that the noble and learned Lord gave today. My response was then, as it is today, to wholly support what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very, very grateful to the wise and learned noble Lord, but I did not detect a question, unfortunately.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the pleasure that his Answer will give? I refer not just to the Answer itself but to the fact that there appears to be at least one area of government that the Government are not prepared to screw up, particularly in relation to the constitution.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was aware of the pleasure that my Answer would give in certain quarters, although it is rather unfair of the noble Earl to refer to the other constitutional changes we have made as "screwing up" certain arrangements. I hope that as time goes on the merit of what we have done will become apparent.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I detect a slight hint in my noble and learned friend's Answer that, if there were marches down Whitehall saying "end gender discrimination" as regards the monarchy, the Government might be persuaded to change their mind. I put a serious point to him: he has said that the heir to the throne is male and that his son is male; yes, but it would be invidious to consider legislation when Prince William is married and has children. Doing so then would be too late.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I say, there is no groundswell for change at the moment. We abhor gender discrimination. Let us not hypothesise about what may happen in the future.
Terrorism Bill
3.01 pm
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
11 Jan 2006 : Column 164
To ask Her Majesty's Government why a document from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights which commented on the Terrorism Bill and which the high commissioner requested be laid before the House before Second Reading of the Terrorism Bill was withheld from the House by the Home Office during the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government could not have published the UN commissioner's letter prior to Second Reading of the Terrorism Bill, as she requested, since she did not submit it to us until a week after Second Reading had taken place. We have published the letter under cover of a Written Ministerial Statement in time for it to be considered while the Terrorism Bill is still before your Lordships' House.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in my haste to table the PNQ this morning before the deadline, I overlooked the fact that the letter was received shortly after Second Reading. The letter refers specifically to Second Reading and Committee. I note the disturbing response of noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I am asking the Government to comment on their behaviour. The noble Baroness has omitted to give a full explanation. The letter concerned a matter of the greatest public interest, it came from a source of the highest significance and it contained a specific request that it be directed to the attention of this House. Awareness of this letter would certainly have affected the way in which this House considered the Bill in Committee, by which time the Government had the letter. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will give positive consideration to relaxing the rules relating to Report, to enable the House to probe properly the points raised by the United Nations commissioner?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to say that it will not be necessary so to do because, as the noble Baroness will see, having had the advantage of reading that letter, all the issues raised by the commissioner have been raised by Members of this House, who have the acuity to raise them themselves. Those issues were raised both in the other place and here, and have been raised fully.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |