Grand Committee

Thursday 8th October 2020 Grand Committee

Thursday 8 October 2020

The Grand Committee met in a hybrid proceeding.

Trade Bill

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Grand Committee

Committee (4th Day)

14:35

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Constitution Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, as we have just had, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.

A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips’ Office, as have lists of Members who have put their names down to the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the chair calls each speaker; and interventions during speeches or “Before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.

During the debate on each group I will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate.

Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not content” an amendment is negatived and if a single voice says “Content” a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an amendment expected to be agreed to, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin the resumed debate on Amendment 26.

Clause 2: Implementation of international trade agreements

Debate on Amendment 26 resumed.

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 26, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on Tuesday and to which I have my name. I will also speak to Amendment 27, which carries my name, and have put forward Amendment 99, which, as it turns out, overlaps with these other amendments and addresses devolution issues relating to the Bill, specifically in regard to Wales. I share many of the misgivings expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Humphreys and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in the debate on Tuesday.

The fact that the devolution dimension raises its head time and time again as we consider Bills in the post-Brexit context should surely make noble Lords step back for a moment and ask why this keeps coming up to challenge us in this Chamber. The devolved Governments of Wales and Scotland have been operational for over 20 years, and although issues have arisen from time to time relating to respective powers, we are now witnessing a fundamental change in attitude and, if this is not handled wisely at Westminster, it could all end in tears.

The truth, of course, is that stepping back from the EU means that powers which, over two, three or sometimes four decades, have been exercised at a European level will henceforward be undertaken within the UK. A majority of the powers returning from Brussels to the UK on devolved issues such as agriculture, employment, regional policy and roads will be passed immediately to the devolved Administrations for their exercise in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively; they will be exercised at Westminster for England. But there are some responsibilities which relate, directly or indirectly, to devolved powers which the Government have deemed ones to be exercised for the whole of the UK from Westminster.

There may well be arguments for doing so in some limited matters where that is sensible but, if and when that is the case, and bearing in mind that we are dealing with portfolio matters which have hitherto been the responsibility of the devolved Governments, with implications within the devolved nations, clearly the onus should be on the UK Government to make the case and not to drive their policy through purely by dint of political clout.

In particular, there must be agreed mechanisms for resolving issues where there is disagreement between Westminster and one or more of the devolved Governments, since existing mechanisms have lost their credibility. In opening the debate on these amendments the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said:

“We urgently need a means of settling disagreements, one that commands confidence and trust”.—[Official Report, 6/10/20; col. GC 201.]


The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, highlighted how the Bill, as currently worded, would impinge on devolved powers such as food standards, animal health and environmental standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, drew attention to the call of the Counsel General for Wales, Jeremy Miles, for a

“new form of joint governance”

for Britain’s internal market.

Only yesterday, the Welsh Government demanded an explanation from the UK Government after it was leaked that Ministers at Westminster had deliberately decided to withhold key information from the devolved Administrations on matters relating to a worst-case scenario for food—a devolved matter. The Committee might like to know that the information concealed arises from the UK’s document on transitional period planning assumptions, which includes orders that the information should not be shared publicly with the devolved Administrations at this stage. This is quite outrageous, and it is little wonder that Ministers in Cardiff and Edinburgh are hopping mad.

What screams out at us is the need to establish jointly a dispute-resolution mechanism that carries the confidence of the devolved Governments and Parliaments. If we do not do this, then time after time we are going to face the same recriminations here at Westminster and the same frustrations in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. Such a mechanism might have elements of a federal or confederal approach, and this might be an anathema to some noble colleagues in this Committee and in our House. The alternative, however, is to tell the devolved Governments that power devolved is power retained, and that the choice they have is either to swallow hard and accept that England has the numbers and that the devolved Governments must lump it, or to go down the road to independence and ending the United Kingdom. That is the choice that might have to be made. If so, it is a choice that legislators at Westminster will have to face, as much as those in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

We hear voices in Northern Ireland demanding, as a direct consequence of Brexit, a reunification poll within the next five years. In Scotland, a majority in the polls now support independence. In Wales—and this might well come as a surprise to colleagues in this Committee—the support level for independence has reached an unprecedented 34%. That is not a majority—yet—but it is enjoying a momentum that has never previously been witnessed in my country.

In all three nations, this is a direct result of the botched manner in which Westminster have mishandled the consequences of Brexit and failed to work in partnership on devolved issues such as healthcare. This frustration is felt not only by nationalists in the three devolved nations but equally by the Labour leadership in Cardiff, as was expressed graphically by Mark Drakeford last week, and indeed by Unionists in Belfast. In the context of this Bill, there is now an opportunity to send a message to all three devolved legislatures: that Westminster does indeed accept that there is an issue here that has not been properly resolved and there is a willingness to address this issue rather than let it fester yet again into one where the three devolved legislatures refuse to agree the necessary consent orders.

This is avoidable: it will not be resolved here today, but if the Government were committed to bringing forward on Report their own amendment based on the principles that underpin this bank of amendments, they might help open a new, happier phase in the relationships between the nations of these islands. If the Government do not do this, or if the other place were to overturn any amendment agreed by this House, Westminster would be making the same mistake that it has so sadly made in the past. As we approach the centenary of Irish independence, it might be salutary to contemplate the serial blunders of Westminster Governments in their handling of Ireland, and the way they are now heading in relation to Scotland and Wales. It is not too late, but it is getting that way, and I ask the Minister to treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.

14:45

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 26 and 99, to which I have appended my name, and echo many of the concerns that have been expressed by previous speakers. I am delighted to have received a briefing from the Law Society of Scotland; as a non-practising advocate, I obviously heed what it says. It is an apolitical organisation that speaks for many of the practitioners in Scotland, and I would like to share with the Committee this afternoon some of its concerns, which have been echoed by previous speakers.

The society points out that the Scottish Government have highlighted a number of tensions between the devolved Administrations. We have just heard about the Welsh Assembly in an eloquent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who spoke to Amendment 99. We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, when he moved Amendment 26. There is a very clear tension emerging between the devolved Administrations, Assemblies and Parliaments over the power reserved to the Government at Westminster, who are now negotiating trade agreements for the whole of the United Kingdom.

In the legislative consent memorandum lodged by the Scottish Government in the Scottish Parliament on 18 August this year, the Scottish Government recommended that Parliament agree to the Bill. But they pointed in particular to these amendments and Clause 2, which lies at the heart of these amendments, providing a power for both the UK and Scottish Ministers within devolved competence to make regulations to implement qualifying international trade agreements. I will ask the Minister to answer a very simple question, to go to avoiding this attention on this occasion. It is important that regulations are put in place in advance of the completion date of 31 December this year. Can the Minister confirm that these regulations will be in place and that there will be information-awareness campaigns for the general public, citizens and businesses, as well as professions in the UK, both north of the border and west of the border and at Westminster, so that the terms of these agreements and their implications are known?

For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, gave, it is extremely important to know that there will be a mechanism in the event that this tension, to which I referred earlier, leads to disagreements, and what that mechanism will be. It is also important that the common frameworks are made more public: it is not acceptable that they are currently shrouded in mystery. So I hope that my noble friend will take this opportunity to put a date on when these regulations will be in place, tell us what the dispute-resolution mechanism will be and confirm that there will be an information campaign north and south of the border in this regard.

[Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, both of whom always speak with such passion and conviction, particularly on these matters. This group of amendments, including Amendments 61and 62, to which I have added my name, is about establishing the principle of the need for consultation and consent with the devolved authorities and legislatures, and about laying down some markers for how we can establish open and effective methods for dispute resolution in our unwritten constitution.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said, more than 20 years on since the various devolution settlements were agreed, the stresses and strains of our uncodified system are in danger of being tested to breaking point as a result of Brexit. Future United Kingdom trade deals risk highlighting these stresses and strains yet further, which is why it is so important to test the Government’s responses to many of these issues as we debate these amendments this afternoon.

Twenty years ago, when the devolution settlements were being devised, there were fewer party-political stresses on the system, as Labour was in power—in coalition or otherwise—in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Westminster. Clearly, now that we have an SNP Government in Edinburgh, a Labour-led Administration in Wales and a re-established power-sharing Executive in Belfast, as well as a fairly nationalist Conservative Government in Westminster, our mechanisms of consent and trust are being tested to the limit.

I should perhaps declare an interest as a Scot with an Irish passport currently living in the county of Kent. Those of us who are not nationalists have a collective interest in ensuring that we find ways to make our future constitutional settlement and trading relationships work effectively throughout the whole United Kingdom. I therefore hope that the Minister agrees that providing the necessary information to the devolved legislatures to allow scrutiny of any future trade agreement—as set down in Amendment 62—is the very least that can be expected and is surely in everyone’s best interests. Providing the text at least two months before the agreement and inviting comment from the devolved legislatures would provide the kind of buy-in and involvement that will assist in developing coherence in policy-making across the United Kingdom.

We should remember that this should always be a two-way flow of information. The UK’s devolved legislatures are often in a stronger position to understand the impact of new trade deals on local businesses and communities. Obviously, this is particularly true in the case of Northern Ireland, where the impact on SMEs could be very significant, not least because of the complex supply lines. Does the Minister acknowledge that free trade agreements will have a direct impact on the effectiveness and scope of devolved policy-making and legislation? Does he also accept that consent mechanisms with the devolved Governments are vital to maintaining the coherence of our United Kingdom?

I will turn now to a very specific FTA: that of Japan. Can the Minister say to what degree the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly were kept informed during the negotiations, given the very particular set of circumstances faced by Northern Ireland resulting from the Northern Ireland protocol? Does he accept the analysis of a Stormont official who said the week before last:

“Some Japanese goods sold in Britain as part of a new trade agreement may not be available in Northern Ireland due to the Brexit deal”?


Turning to the future role of the Joint Ministerial Committee—covered in Amendments 50 and 76—it should be noted in passing that, despite his new title of Minister for the Union, the Prime Minister has not yet presided over a plenary session of the JMC, as far as I am aware. The JMC has until now been a consultative rather than a decision-making body but, given the likely increase in tensions, surely it makes sense to increase both the frequency of meetings and their capacity for decision-making.

As Professor Nicola McEwen said in her evidence to the Lords Constitution Committee a couple of weeks ago, the JMC on EU negotiations is currently the best-functioning of the JMCs, but is likely to cease to exist at the end of transition period and, as yet, there are no clear indications of how it will be replaced. Can the Minister say whether there are plans to ensure that the JMC meets more frequently? What plans are there to replace the JMC on European negotiations from 1 January next year? Does the Minister agree that it is increasingly vital to have regular meetings of the JMC, so that we can have greater consultation and co-ordination? Can he also say whether thought has been given to establishing additional sub-committees within the JMC framework to discuss such issues as international trade and international relations?

No doubt the Minister will say in his reply that all sorts of assurances on consent and consultation have already been given, but, for those kinds of assurances to carry weight, there has to be a significant level of trust. Tragically, that trust has been eroded throughout the whole Brexit experience, which has led to the very real need for the amendments we are discussing, and the need to put mechanisms for both consultation and consent in the Bill.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the three noble Lords who have opened our session and to express my broad agreement with the direction of everything they said.

I have attached my name to Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I do not intend to go through each amendment in this group one by one, except perhaps to note that Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, seem to be the strongest and to address the key issues. But all the amendments address issues of concern and at least seek to prevent what we could describe as a dictatorship from Westminster.

On the broad picture of what is happening with this group of amendments, as we have said again and again during our discussions on the Bill, trade is now understood to be a far more complex matter than it was thought to be decades ago when your Lordships’ House and the other place last considered it. Occasionally we hear from a small rearguard, saying that trade has nothing to do with the environment or labour standards or considerations beyond the narrowly neoliberal economic —indeed, that such issues should not be raised at all here. But that argument is clearly well past its sell-by date.

Carbon emissions from the products we consider trading have an impact on us all, as does the environmental destruction associated with them. If we think about the origins of the current pandemic, we see that the destruction of nature anywhere in the world has an impact on us all. The impact is also very directly onshore. If we think about the exposure of the situation of the garment industry in England, particularly in Leicester, the nature of trade and the failure of regulation—indeed, the failure to have the will to regulate—are part of that story. And, of course, bringing junk products in produces waste that must be dealt with.

That brings me to devolution. The aim of devolution —the direction of travel—is to allow nations to choose their own routes and, for example, set higher environmental, labour and food standards, as we have sadly seen happen for England. We will look at that a great deal more when we come to the Internal Market Bill, but in this context we are talking about foreign trade. Whatever Westminster might seek to inflict on England in the form of free trade zones or the destruction of standards by bringing in inferior, damaging, disastrous products, the whole point of devolution is that nations can make their own democratic choices in systems far more democratic than in Westminster, and not see them undermined by an influx of low-standard foreign goods or services. They must be able to say no to these goods and services in their trade. In these amendments, we seek to ensure that that possibility is there. It is a democratic essential.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I refer Members to my entry in the register of interests. It is a pleasure to follow the preceding noble Lords, who have made particular cases in respect of several amendments. I will address Amendment 61 in my name—to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, have added their names—and Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to which I and the noble Baronesses have added our names.

Before I explain the need for proper consent and scrutiny arrangements with the devolved Administrations, it is important to note that those two amendments deal specifically with Northern Ireland. Although there have been devolved settlements in the regions of the United Kingdom over the past 20 years, we in Northern Ireland have been subjected to in-and-out periods of devolution. We have sometimes had periods of direct rule, although the last time the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly were not sitting and we did not have the other infrastructure associated with the Good Friday agreement, basically Westminster made some decisions, but it was not a form of direct rule because amendments to the then Northern Ireland Executive Bill addressed those particular issues.

Because of the sensitivities of dealing with the devolved arrangements in Northern Ireland, and because of their intricate nature, it is important that the relationships that were manifest in the Good Friday agreement—relationships between unionists and nationalists in the north, between the north and south of Ireland and between Ireland and Britain—are nurtured and not set aside or fractured in any way. Yesterday, the good bishops of the Catholic Church in Ireland stressed the importance of underscoring that shared space. Their fear was that Covid, Brexit, all these trading arrangements, the Trade Bill and the Internal Market Bill could fracture those relationships in a very unnecessary way.

15:00

Amendment 61 deals with the need for the devolved Administrations to agree to any trade deal that the Government might be contemplating or seeking to approve. This is necessary because there is a fear of a Westminster power grab from the devolved Administrations. Amendment 62 provides for a necessary level of scrutiny and consultation with the devolved Administrations. Of course, the very clear issues of the Internal Market Bill—which seems in some ways to supersede the common frameworks—intersect with all of this. The Bill causes fractures and difficulties for our intricate set of political relationships. Because of the slight level of volatility, these need to be nurtured and developed and not undermined in any particular way. There is a fear that Northern Ireland will be excluded from UK free trade agreements. It is important to minimise this risk—hence the need for agreement, consent and scrutiny by the devolved Administrations.

I understand that the Government have said that Northern Ireland will benefit from access to its new free trade agreements. On the one hand, this makes sense because Northern Ireland is in the UK customs territory. However, this is not straightforward, because the EU customs code will be applied in Northern Ireland, as will its standards for the production of food. So will the Minister specify that Northern Ireland will not be excluded from free trade agreements? Will the Government accept both these amendments to ensure that this level of consent, scrutiny and adherence, to ensure that we are included in free trade agreements, is placed in statute by the Bill? I—and the other noble Lords who have signed these amendments—believe that this is vitally important.

In conclusion, it is important that Northern Ireland does not sit outside these free trade agreements, which could undermine our very economic basis. There is also the issue of where these free trade agreements intersect with the Northern Ireland protocol. We do not want any borders in the Irish Sea and we do not want any borders on the island of Ireland that could interfere with our delicate political arrangements, our trading relationships and our very economic base, at this particular time of the pandemic.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 61 and 62, spoken to so excellently just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It is a pleasure to follow other noble Lords. These amendments are also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I also support the general aims of the other amendments in this group.

This Bill is particularly concerned with non-tariff trade barriers. Nowadays, regulatory barriers to trade are often the most crucial parts of free trade agreements. When introducing this Bill, my noble friend talked about strengthening and protecting the devolved Administrations. I wholeheartedly agree with these sentiments, and that is indeed what these amendments aim to achieve.

As other noble Lords have said, the Westminster Government have the reserved power to negotiate and sign international trade agreements. However, while standards for manufactured goods may also be reserved, powers over implementation of regulations in areas such as agriculture and food products are matters for the devolved Administrations. In order to be able to implement newly negotiated free trade agreements, the Government surely have a direct interest in including the devolved Administrations, as these amendments seek to introduce into the Bill. Failing to do so could clearly put the union at risk.

Of course, the Westminster Government could ultimately get around refusals by devolved nations to implement the agreed terms of an FTA by coercion. But, if free trade agreements result in battles between London and the devolved Parliaments—with Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland taking the English Government to court over terms of a trade agreement to which they had not agreed—it is likely that our ability to strike further deals would be called into question. Surely there would be a far greater likelihood of success in future if the devolved Governments were involved at an early stage. I urge my noble friend to take note of how Canada operated when negotiating the CETA deal. It included its provincial Governments in its negotiations, which ensured that any commitments they made were more credible and more easily accepted across Canada.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, said, the UK is a “family of nations”. Absolutely. In the modern era, a family is considered to function best when all its members are involved in decision-making, rather than the dictatorial senior parent ordering everybody to obey their wishes and do what they are told. This causes particular strife when, for example, another family member is promised control over certain decisions which affect their daily life and well-being, but then finds that they were misled. Westminster must surely accept the need to include the devolved Governments in areas of such significance. Respecting their needs at an early stage and including them as soon as possible will ultimately result in better agreements.

Can my noble friend explain the Government’s thinking in resisting these amendments? Specifically, in relation to Amendments 61 and 62, reserved powers over international trade are limited by two constraints. I have already mentioned that the implementation of trade agreements for agri and food is devolved. The second is the Northern Ireland protocol. According to this protocol, EU regulations on goods—whether manufactured or agricultural—are supposed to continue to apply in Northern Ireland for the duration of the protocol. Annexe 2 includes the whole EU acquis for product standards. If the EU amends these rules, Northern Ireland is supposed to change, too.

We will come back to the position of Northern Ireland in a later group, but I hope my noble friend will consider these amendments carefully—or his own wording to achieve these aims when we reach Report.

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I echo the words in particular of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke eloquently about the situation in Wales and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about Northern Ireland.

Amendments 61 and 62 are also in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie, Lady Altmann and Lady Suttie. I also support Amendment 57, tabled by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I want to focus on the appalling record which this current Administration have in their approach to the elected, devolved Governments and legislatures of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The United Kingdom is currently engaged in what are without doubt the most crucial trade negotiations of the last 50 years: the negotiations about our future trading arrangements with the EU, our largest trading partner. But, unlike most such negotiations, these are not about securing additional benefits for our businesses from a liberalisation of trade: no, the stakes are even higher, because these negotiations are about preventing the introduction of new barriers to trade which all have the potential, even if an agreement is reached, to cripple our manufacturing industry, with a loss of jobs in sectors which are particularly important—for example, to Wales, aerospace and automotive—leaving the devolved Governments with their responsibility for economic development to pick up the pieces.

The negotiations with the EU will also directly impact on issues wholly within devolved competence, such as health and education, since a failure to negotiate mutual recognition of our medicines licensing regime, for example, will lead to increased costs and delays in accessing new treatments, while the failure to secure continued participation in the Erasmus+ programme will impoverish the educational experience of thousands of young people in Wales and indeed across the United Kingdom.

What opportunity have the devolved institutions had to influence, let alone shape, these negotiations? Mike Russell, the Scottish Government’s Constitution Minister, pointed out in June that

“we had virtually no involvement in producing”

the negotiating guidelines or legal text published by the Government,

“and indeed only saw the legal texts—with no possibility of changing them—24 hours before they were published.”

Jeremy Miles, the Minister for European Transition in the Welsh Government, has talked about the

“absence of meaningful Ministerial engagement, where UK Ministers discuss and seek to agree with us not just their formal starting position but the approach they expect to take as the negotiations evolve.”

The Joint Ministerial Committee on European negotiations, whose terms of reference are to “seek agreement” on the approach to the negotiations, did not meet at a key time for preparing for these negotiations between 28 January and 21 May of this year. On top of this frankly insulting approach, the Government have now published their internal market Bill, which not only threatens to break international law—and is proclaimed as doing so—but is an outrageous and outright attack on the very basis of the devolved settlements in this country. That is why there is a great deal of concern in all the devolved Administrations.

In this context, it is surely for us, above all in your Lordships’ House, to stand up for the rule of law and the rights of political institutions that were put in place over 20 years ago to protect and promote the interests of those parts of the United Kingdom, each with a distinct identity and social and economic needs, which had been marginalised by the preceding majoritarian political system. That is why my amendments and others which I shall support, such as Amendments 26 and 50, seek to entrench the role of the devolved Governments and legislatures in future trade negotiations that will inevitably shape, and potentially restrain their freedom to exercise, their powers in respect of issues such as food standards and environmental regulation, which sit squarely within their competence.

The devolved institutions are, quite rightly, obliged to implement international agreements which are entered into by the UK Government, even where the matters involved are otherwise under their control. It cannot be right that they are bound in this way without having any rights to influence the outcome of the negotiations that result in such obligations being imposed on them.

Underlying these constitutional issues is the kind of state the UK wants to be: either one run by diktat from the centre, as Boris Johnson’s Ministers are doing over trade negotiations with the European Union and in this Bill—and especially in the internal market Bill—or one run on the principle of democratic consent and mutual respect for all the Governments: the UK’s and those of the devolved Administrations.

But there are practical policy issues at stake as well, and here are my main concerns. Trade deals today, perhaps with the exception of a future UK-EU one, if there is one at all, extend into a wide range of social provision and domestic policy issues, such as workers’ rights, environmental protection and safety, product and food safety regulations, and procurement. As a result, trade deals are often politically contentious: the more comprehensive they are, the more they are likely to be seen as leading to a loss of regulatory autonomy and democratic accountability. As such, it is wrong to see free trade agreements as purely “business” or “trade” concerns: they reach right to the core of responsible government and public welfare. Many of the areas covered by free trade agreements—for example, agriculture, the environment, forestry, health and economic development —are within the competence of the devolved Administrations.

15:15

Not everybody wins from trade liberalisation. Opening domestic markets to foreign competition can have adverse effects on some domestic industries. These industries might be more prevalent in some parts of the UK compared with others—Welsh lamb farmers, for example, or Scottish distillers. It is not unknown for trade agreements to be used by Governments to circumvent domestic opposition and push through regulatory reforms—so-called “policy laundering”.

The devolved Governments have been explicit in their requests for formal consultation and engagement from the UK Government on future free trade agreements. The Department for International Trade itself stated that

“we intend to continue this collaborative approach”—

with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—

“as we develop the UK’s future trade policy.”

Admittedly, the DIT has been better at engaging with the devolved Administrations than the Ministers currently negotiating with Brussels.

Formal consultation and consent can bring three main benefits: first, it protects the interests and represents the industries of all the UK when it comes to negotiations, not just those of England; secondly, it makes sure that the potential impact of such free trade agreements across the whole of the UK are understood in detail; and, thirdly, it enhances the democratic legitimacy of the free trade agreements. Failure to include the devolved Governments at all will lead to conflict both in terms of local interests and the impact of these free trade agreements, and in terms of sub-national and national government within the UK. These will only bring economic, social and political harm to the union.

The inclusion of the devolved Governments is made all the more crucial by the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. This would, through the principle of mutual recognition, create a situation in which any good that meets relevant regulatory requirements relating to sale in the part of the UK that it is produced in or imported into can be sold in any other part of the UK without having to adhere to the relevant regulatory requirements in that other part.

If Scotland and Wales are excluded from having an input into these trade talks, along with Northern Ireland, they will face the double whammy of not being able to protect their markets from imports they see as potentially harmful to domestic industries, as well as their domestic legislation on product and food standards being rendered null and void because it will apply only to locally produced goods. There is literally nothing the devolved Administrations could do to protect their local interests and concerns—something that has been to the health and benefit of the UK for the past 20 years of devolution.

These amendments are the “bare bones” when it comes to ensuring that a free trade agreement will be in the interests of the UK as a whole. They mean that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will see the details of a free trade agreement in advance and will be able to scrutinise it, and that their consent will be required. These amendments should be seen as ensuring the balance and health of the union, not as undermining it.

Although there is relatively good communication between civil servants in Whitehall and the devolved Administrations on progress and issues raised in the UK’s negotiation of free trade agreements, it is no guarantee against serious mistakes or dangerous decisions. We have to show trust in the elected representatives, democratic legislatures and responsible Executives in each part of the UK. To need their consent for a free trade agreement that could have such a direct impact on their economy, policies and regulatory effectiveness is surely a reasonable expectation of any pro-union UK Government, as this Government purport to be.

I understand why this Government may be wary about calling for a consent power from devolved Governments, which might be implied by Amendment 61, in my name and those of my noble friends, on the outcome of trade negotiations, because, under the current system, this would enable any one of the devolved nations to perpetually block a trade agreement: for example, the Scottish nationalists could simply refuse to endorse a trade agreement that would benefit the rest of the country, leading to deadlock.

But Amendment 61 does not explicitly call for a consent power. It requires the consent of the devolved Governments, ideally—as my noble friend Lord Wigley mentioned and the Welsh Government advocated—through a Council of Ministers model, with a form of qualified majority voting in place of the current joint management committee, which has been dysfunctional and, frankly, worse than useless. This model would require the UK Government—since it represents England, with its disproportionately large population and share of GDP—to secure the agreement of at least one devolved Administration before overriding any devolved Administration that wanted to exercise a veto.

While many federal countries have arrangements that give the lower tier of government some control over international negotiations, none, except Belgium, gives individual substate territories a veto. Labour Welsh Ministers and our party’s Front Bench have been clear in the past that they would not support the SNP and Scottish Government’s contention that each devolved Administration should have an absolute veto over each trade agreement. My noble friend Lord Stevenson’s Amendment 57 requires devolved Administration consent, although admittedly in a context where Parliament would have proper oversight over trade policy negotiations, which is certainly not the case under the Bill.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister, in responding, will support the principles behind our two Amendments 61 and 62 and, if he has any technical objections rather than objections in principle, will come back at Report with government amendments that we can all support.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I find myself in agreement with much of what he said. I speak to Amendments 26 and 27 in this group. As we have heard, they both address the same point about engagement with the devolved Administrations when a Minister of the Crown is exercising the powers conferred by this clause. I am grateful to them for raising this subject, which I raised at Second Reading. As I think the Minister will recognise, how devolution is addressed in the Bill is most important and has to be handled wisely, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, so rightly said.

Of the two amendments before us, I prefer that in the name of my noble kinsman Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. That is because the context for this discussion is the making of orders by delegated legislation, which is the privilege of Ministers, not of legislatures. Obtaining the consent of the relevant Minister in the devolved Administrations, rather than of their legislatures, seems the better and easier route in this context. But that is a side issue; the issue of principle matters. I agree with and endorse the points that the noble Lords proposing these amendments made in support of them.

I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, for the very helpful reply he gave to a letter that I wrote to him, after Second Reading. This came about because I happened to be in the Chamber and took part in the debate personally, so I was able to take advantage of the opportunity, which noble Lords participating virtually do not have, of catching a moment with the Minister afterwards. I asked him why, as was the case, he had not answered the questions that I put to him in my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also noted the lack of any response to them, as he recalled when he was speaking in this debate yesterday. Very kindly and without hesitation, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, invited me to write to him instead, and gave me his email address. That is how this letter to me came about, and I am most grateful to him for the generous way he responded to my inquiry.

While I do not agree with everything it says, this letter has provided far and away the best and most thorough explanation that I have received for the Government’s approach to amendments asking for consent to be obtained from the devolved Administrations to be put in the Bill, and why they have almost always been refused. Although I greatly regret the refusal, it at least shows that the Government are thinking about the issue.

I am sure that we will have to return to this in the different and much more controversial context of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, on which a storm is brewing with the devolved Administrations about UK market access provisions, which is every bit as powerful as that for Part 5 of the Bill. But the context here is different: this Bill is concerned with international agreements for which, although implementation is devolved, the UK Government are ultimately responsible internationally. Both the Scottish and Welsh Ministers have recommended that their legislatures give their consent to the Bill, so we are in much calmer territory, but I wish to support these amendments and to explain why.

I start by taking up a point that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made at the outset of his speech. Referring to the Sewel convention, he said that the question of whether it should or could apply to delegated legislation is still open. The time has come for us to put that to bed, once and for all. It should now be recognised on all sides that the principle of the convention extends to delegated legislation by UK government Ministers in the same way as it does to legislation by the UK Parliament. In view of the importance of the matter, perhaps I can be allowed to say why that is so. I have the following reasons.

First, there is no doubt that, if he had been asked about this at the time, Lord Sewel would have said that his remark applied to the use of delegated powers too. It did not occur to any of the noble Lords who were there 20 years ago to ask him about this, because the idea that delegated powers might be used in this area was nothing like as obvious as it is now. Today, we all appreciate that Brexit could not be made to work across so many areas without resort to delegated legislation on a scale far removed from what we were used to that long ago. That is why the issue has been raised time and again during this process.

Secondly, the convention, as first formulated by Lord Sewel—recorded more formally in a memorandum of understanding and put into statutory language by Section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016—refers to legislation by the Parliament of the United Kingdom only. But we are dealing here with a convention, a political statement, and not black-letter law. What really matters is the principle that lies behind it. There is no logical reason whatever for not applying the Sewel principle to delegated legislation too.

Thirdly, we need look only to what happens in practice. There is a very high level of engagement, at official level at least, between the devolved Administrations across the board and the UK Government. There is no suggestion there that the fact that delegated legislation may be in prospect, rather than primary legislation made in this Parliament, makes any difference.

Finally, there is the noble Lord’s letter. It contains an express commitment that the UK Government will not normally legislate using the Bill’s powers—these are delegated powers—in areas of devolved competence without consent of the relevant devolved Administration, and never without consulting them first. There it is: Sewel applies here too. It applies across the board.

To cement this into our practice, so that we can refer to it whenever it is needed, we should give this commitment a name. I would call it the Sewel principle. It is striking, and to the Government’s great credit, that nowhere in the letter is it suggested that we are limited nowadays by the precise wording of the convention. It is the Sewel principle that is being applied now. Although the memorandum and statute are silent on the point, they do not exclude this approach so, please, let us say farewell to any idea that the question of whether it applies to delegated legislation is still open.

As for the reasons given in the letter for the Bill not providing that UK government Ministers must seek the consent of the devolved Administrations, I will make a few points. First, it is said that to do that would discourage consensual intergovernmental working and incentivise bringing disagreements to the courts. Reference is made to the case of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Bill in the Supreme Court as an example of the lengthy litigation that may result. I simply do not follow that argument. Surely the best and most secure way to avoid disagreements is to proceed by consent. That is what these amendments seek to achieve. They are all about settling disagreements, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said.

15:30

As for the Supreme Court’s continuity Bill case, the situation was entirely different. That case dealt with the Scottish Parliament’s response to the UK’s withdrawal Bill, to which it had refused consent. If it tells us anything about what we have here, it is that if you proceed without agreement, there may be trouble. That is what these amendments, if passed, would avoid.

Then it is said that to put the commitment in the Bill risks undermining the principle enshrined in the devolution statutes that international trade is a reserved matter and that, as a matter of international law, the UK Government are ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with our obligations, even in devolved areas. Yes, the devolution statutes state that international relations are reserved matters: see, for instance, paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. But look at the wording of paragraph 7(2), which states:

“Sub-paragraph (1) does not reserve … (a) observing and implementing international relations … (b) assisting Ministers of the Crown in relation to any matter to which that sub-paragraph applies.”

It could not be plainer.

Implementation, which Clause 2 is about, is devolved. It is a matter entirely for the devolved Administrations, not UK Government Ministers or the UK Parliament. It is devolution itself that is being undermined with this reasoning, not the principle that international trade is a reserved matter. There is more than a hint here of the very worst of parents that the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, was talking about so well in her speech yesterday: the devolved Administrations must be kept in order and, like little children, cannot be trusted to behave themselves.

Let us be clear. The idea that the UK Government can tell the devolved Administrations what to do and what not to do to ensure compliance when implementing these agreements finds no support whatever in the wording of that paragraph. It is entirely at odds with the devolution settlements. It for the devolved Administrations to make their own democratic choices, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said. I support these amendments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The strength of argument he has put behind these amendments and the analysis that he always brings to bear are very forceful. I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate, because the Minister should be clear that they have articulated not only a very clear strength of feeling but a really strong force of argument behind all these amendments and the need to maintain the devolution settlement. Of course, all these amendments have devolution at the heart. How it is handled by the UK Government requires a huge sensitivity which, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, has not always been displayed.

I shall speak specifically to my Amendments 27 and 76, and to Amendment 30, which I have signed. I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Humphreys and Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for signing Amendment 27, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who certainly indicated some support for Amendment 76.

Far-reaching decisions under the Agriculture Bill, the Trade Bill and the forthcoming Internal Market Bill put the devolution settlements and the integrity of the United Kingdom under immense strain. This has been stressed by pretty well every speaker in this debate. It has come about because the umbrella of the European Union, which set the framework, is being removed, so powers that revert to the UK have to take account of the devolution that took place while we were in the EU. Some of the powers are fully devolved and come to the devolved Administrations. Some are reserved. All this requires that the powers that come back to the regions are not overridden. Those that are reserved, are reserved. That is clear. Those that are hybrid are clearly open to debate. But what is emerging is that some that are theoretically devolved are being clawed back by the Government’s interpretation of what is reserved.

These amendments seek to test the Government’s good faith and ensure that decisions that may radically alter the terms of trade for companies, the public sector or individuals within any or all of the devolved Administrations are taken in a fair and objective way. Amendment 27 requires the Government to secure the consent of the devolved legislatures to any regulations under the Bill, and proposed new subsection (6B) suggests that if two of the three devolved legislatures do not consent, the regulation should not proceed. Effectively, this is an exploratory amendment to see to what extent the UK Government respect the settlements and wish to achieve unanimity—or at least, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, suggested, qualified majority support. I think most of us accept that it would be unreasonable to allow one devolved Administration to have a veto, but it is equally unreasonable to allow the one devolved Administration which is also the UK Government to have a veto over the three devolved Administrations, which is what the Government are proposing in the Bill.

Amendment 78 seeks to embed the role of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which has been underregarded to date. It has brokered the agreement on common frameworks, which will be subject to this House’s new committee, of which I am a member. However, it has not been the vehicle for negotiation and compromise that some had hoped for. It was envisaged by many that it would be the vehicle by which consensus could be secured. The amendment requires it to meet prior to concluding a free trade agreement and to secure the consent of the devolved Administrations.

What we are talking about in practice here is that trade agreements are treaties and treaties are reserved. Under the EU, our devolved Administrations could not, at least before we left, make common cause with subnational Parliaments and Governments across the other 27 member states. We are all familiar with the role of Belgium’s provincial Parliaments in ratifying EU treaties, and nobody in these amendments is seeking to give any of the devolved Administrations in the UK a comparable power—but once the power lies with Westminster and Whitehall, there is no Europe-wide constituency to pursue. There is no consensus to be built up across like-minded legislatures elsewhere, other than the three devolved Administrations, which have different priorities but common values and common concerns.

If the Government chose to conclude an agreement that lowered food standards, perhaps compromising Scotland’s prime beef sector, it would surely be essential that this was agreed by the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, I challenge the Minister to say under what circumstances the Government could justify that without securing such consent. If public procurement was amended to allow elements of the health service to be available for foreign investment, or for previously non-approved drugs to be allowed, or financial regulations to be lowered or changed in ways that were detrimental to Scotland’s important financial services sector, should the people of Scotland and their representatives not be consulted in a meaningful way?

I take on board the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about whether it should be Ministers or legislatures—but, as he said, that is a matter of detail. The principle is that the voice of Scotland should be taken into account, and the same would apply on comparable issues in Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course, England needs devolution, and if the Government could find a democratic way of consulting the English regions, it could add a valuable balance. But the fact that that has not been done should not be used as an excuse to say that the devolved Administrations cannot expect to have their views given the weight that these amendments are trying to secure.

Ministerial insensitivity and indifference are, frankly, turbocharging nationalism and separatism. Next year’s elections will be hard fought between the extremes of what to me is a fantasy independence agenda and a UK Government cavalier about their claim to be unionist, and another crisis may engulf us all. I therefore urge the Government to wake up, think and engage, and at least to adopt the spirit of these amendments and show respect to the devolution settlement and an understanding of how to secure a positive way of working.

Dispute resolution will be required. The Government should accept that, ideally, we would like to see government amendments which take the spirit of the amendments that have been debated today and put it on the face of the Bill. That would ensure that any disputes are properly handled in an objective, fair and independent way, and that it is not just a matter of the assurance of a Government who, in the Bill, are saying that ultimately, in the event of disagreement within or across the devolved Administrations, the UK Government, representing the English devolved Administration and the UK, will override the wishes of the devolved Administrations. If the Government seek to do that, they will put a huge explosive under the continuing functioning of the United Kingdom.

It is important that the strength of feeling and the strength of argument that these amendments have demonstrated to the Government require a clear vision from government, and for it to be put on the face of the Bill before it is enacted.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, as I respond to this continuing debate today, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important issue of the devolved Administrations’ role in international trade and to demonstrate the significant strides that the Department for International Trade has taken on this matter since the passage of the Trade Bill 2017-19. I have listened to the arguments, and the essence of this debate has been a discussion on the balance between devolved and reserved, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, its link to the test of good faith. There are bound to be differing views on what that balance should be.

During the passage of the previous Trade Bill, the UK Government conducted a significant programme of engagement with the devolved Administrations and your Lordships’ House to ensure that the Bill delivered for all parts of the UK, including regular meetings with devolved Ministers and attending the devolved legislative committees. As a result of this engagement, the UK Government made a number of amendments and commitments to address the devolved Administrations’ concerns. This led the Welsh Parliament to consent to the relevant clauses of that Bill. We are conducting a similar programme of engagement for this Bill and have included all the amendments and restated all our commitments that we made to the devolved Administrations. As a result, the Welsh Government have once again recommended consent to the clauses that were contained in the previous Bill.

However, we have also gone further on this Bill and have made an additional amendment to remove a restriction on the devolved Administrations’ use of the powers in the Bill which the Scottish Government previously objected to. As a consequence, I am pleased that the Scottish Government have now also recommended consent to the Bill, and—to be helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—we are working very hard to ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive also feel able to do so. That the Welsh and Scottish Governments have already recommended consent demonstrates that the Bill is already drafted in a way that respects the devolution settlements. Indeed, in its report on the Bill, the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House welcomed the progress that we have made on this matter and made no recommendations for changes to devolution aspects of the Bill, which it might otherwise have done.

On Amendments 26, 27, 31 and 99, as many noble Lords have highlighted already, international trade is a reserved matter under the devolution settlements. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, rightly noted at Second Reading and today, in line with the noble Baroness, Lady Humphrey, on Tuesday, that the implementation of international obligations in devolved areas is a devolved matter. We absolutely recognise the devolved Administrations’ competence in this area, which is why the Bill confers powers on them so that they are able to implement our continuity agreements where they touch on devolved matters.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, also noted at Second Reading, these are concurrent powers that also allow the UK Government to legislate in devolved areas. We have sought to put in place concurrent powers to provide greater flexibility in how transitioned agreements are implemented, allowing each devolved Administration to implement the agreements independently in some cases, but also allowing the UK Government to legislate on a UK-wide basis where it makes practical sense to do so.

We understand that those powers should be used appropriately, which is why the Government have committed that we will not normally use the concurrent powers to legislate within devolved areas without the consent of the relevant devolved Administration, and never without consulting them first, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said. We have also put in place a five-year sunset provision on the concurrent powers in Clause 2, which can be extended for further periods only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament. We recognise that this would also extend the devolved Administrations’ and the UK Government’s ability to use the powers in devolved areas, and have therefore committed to the devolved Administrations that we will consult them before extending the sunset.

15:45

To answer a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphrey, on Tuesday, any regulations made under the Clause 2 power by the devolved Administrations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will be scrutinised by the devolved legislatures in accordance with their normal procedures. The devolved Administrations and legislatures have also put in place arrangements for the scrutiny of EU exit statutory instruments made in devolved areas by UK government Ministers. For example, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have a protocol on the scrutiny of Scottish Ministers’ decision to consent to UK government secondary legislation on devolved matters. In their memorandum recommending consent to the Bill, the Scottish Government stated that the Bill’s powers would fall under this protocol and that this will provide their Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation. The other devolved Administrations and legislatures are of course able to establish similar arrangements.

These working arrangements are well tested from being used for other EU exit SIs such as those made under the EU withdrawal Act, so the devolved Administrations and legislatures know exactly what procedures will fulfil our commitments in practice. That reassurance has enabled the Welsh and Scottish Governments to recommend consent to the Bill, which I alluded to earlier.

However, Amendments 26, 27, 31 and 99 would go further by placing our commitments on the face of the Bill. I am afraid that I cannot support these amendments, and I will explain my reasons why.

First, placing these commitments in statute risks legally undermining the important principle which Parliament enshrined in the devolution statutes: namely, that international trade is a reserved matter. While in practice the Government work closely with the devolved Administrations on international trade policy, it is important that its legal status as a reserved matter is preserved. The proper functioning of reserved powers is as vital to the devolution settlements as that of devolved powers.

Secondly, it would discourage consensual intergovernmental working and incentivise bringing disagreements to the courts rather than resolving them through political means. As the recent continuity Bill Supreme Court case demonstrated, litigation of this kind can be lengthy and complicated, undermining the fundamental purpose of this Bill, which is, I remind noble Lords, to maximise certainty and continuity of trading arrangements.

Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, noted, the Sewel convention, which our commitment is modelled on, has served this country well. That convention is not legally binding, so the noble Lord must agree that it is not necessary for a commitment to be enforced in statute for it to provide reassurance to the devolved Administrations and to your Lordships’ House.

We have already begun to fulfil some of the commitments we made to the devolved Administrations during the passage of the previous Bill. For example, in relation to trade remedies, we have begun notifying the devolved Administrations of the transition reviews undertaken by the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate, which will be carrying out the functions of the Trade Remedies Authority until it is established by the Bill. This has allowed the devolved Administrations to consider becoming a contributor to these investigations and to submit information to the review.

In answer to a question raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, who asked how the UK Government are working with the devolved Administrations to prepare for the end of the transition period, our work on trade remedies demonstrates that the UK Government are ensuring that all parts of the UK are ready for the end of the transition period. The Department for International Trade has also been working closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure continuity of trade for the whole of the UK for the end of this period. The Bill is an essential part of those preparations, and we have already begun to discuss with the devolved Administrations what regulations may be required in their areas to implement the continuity agreements which are within the scope of the Bill.

I cannot support Amendments 61 and 62 for similar reasons to those which I have just discussed. As mentioned, international trade is a reserved matter under the devolution settlements, and it is ultimately for the UK Parliament to scrutinise the Government’s treaty making. The negotiation of international treaties is also a prerogative power of the UK Government. This rule is not only the result of centuries of constitutional practice but serves an important function: it enables the UK to speak clearly, with a single voice, as a unitary actor under international law. These amendments would, therefore, not only undermine the important constitutional principle that international trade is a reserved matter but also weaken the UK’s negotiating positions.

On Amendments 50 and 76, as the Minister of State for Trade Policy said in the other place, we share the principle behind these amendments and absolutely recognise that, as modern FTAs cover areas of devolved competence, the devolved Administrations have a legitimate interest in our agreements. However, the arrangement that the amendments propose is already in place. Noble Lords may recall that, during the passage of the previous Trade Bill, the previous International Trade Secretary committed to establishing a new ministerial forum for trade with the devolved Administrations. I am pleased to tell your Lordships that this forum is now well established. It had its inaugural meeting in January and has met twice since then to discuss key areas, such as our objectives for the US and Japan free trade agreements.

The forum is chaired by the Minister of State for Trade Policy, who has built strong working relationships with all of his counterparts in the devolved Administrations. In addition to this formal engagement, the Minister also has bilateral and ad hoc engagement with his counterparts to reflect the sometimes fast-paced nature of trade negotiations. The department has also established regular engagement at official level on the technical detail of our trade policy, overseen by the six-weekly senior officials group. This engagement is not merely consultation but genuine co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to ensure that there is delivery for every part of the UK. We have seen the result of that in the recent agreement with Japan.

For example, the department listened to calls from the devolved Administrations about the importance of geographical indications, and the agreement therefore creates the potential of new protection for more iconic goods from the devolved nations, such as Welsh lamb and Scotch beef. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Purvis, have on previous occasions emphasised the importance of geographical indications, and I hope that this shows that the views of this House are also being reflected in our agreements. We will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations on our agreements with Australia, New Zealand and the United States to ensure that their views are also reflected in those agreements.

It is not just the UK Government who think that these arrangements provide the devolved Administrations with a significant voice in our trade policy. Before I make my concluding remarks—and this may interest the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—I will refute the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on our relationship with the devolved Administrations. In evidence to the Welsh Parliament, the Welsh Government’s Minister for International Relations, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said of their involvement in our trade negotiations:

“We’ve not only fed in, but we’ve actually seen the results of us feeding in, and so I think we’ve got to pay respect to the UK Government in this space, and I’m really pleased to see that that is happening.”

To answer a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, who spoke about trust, much work is being done and I believe that the trust is not in doubt. As the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, put it, we are a family of nations.

I have some final questions to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised a point about failing to work in partnership with the devolved Administrations. However, the establishment of the new forum for trade and the statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, which I have just read out, show that the UK Government have been working in partnership, I believe effectively, with all the devolved Administrations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked what involvement the Northern Ireland Executive had in our recent success on the Japan FTA. Let me say that all devolved Administrations receive the same level of engagement, and the noble Baroness should know that we engaged regularly and meaningfully with the Northern Ireland Executive on that deal. I am pleased to be able to reassure her on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked whether Northern Ireland will be included in our trade agreements. I can say to her that, in regular meetings with the Northern Ireland Executive’s Minister for the Economy, Diane Dodds, my colleagues, including the Minister of State for Trade Policy, have reaffirmed the UK’s guarantee in its Command Paper on the implementation of the protocol, established in May, that it will negotiate and deliver trade deals on behalf of all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland.

The UK Government have worked hard to ensure that the devolved Administrations’ views are reflected in this Bill—I hope that I have put that strong argument to this Committee today—and we have made a number of amendments and commitments to address their concerns. I hope that this provides more than enough reassurance to noble Lords, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all speakers, both today and on Tuesday, for a very good debate. I think that everyone who has participated will agree that there has been a huge degree of agreement around the issues and, in some cases, on the way in which they might be resolved. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who said that it was interesting that these issues seem to come back time and time again and do not go away. That gives rise to the suggestion that this issue is relevant not just in relation to this legislation but on a wider scale, and we should be aware of that.

One of the two strands around which this debate has been constructed is the Sewel convention—or, as we might want to call it, in the words of my noble and learned kinsman Lord Hope, the Sewel principle, since part of it is already in statute—and whether we need to think harder about the process under which consent is obtained, both through consultation and through direct negotiation, with whom it is obtained, since there is a suggestion that the focus should perhaps be on Ministers rather than on institutions, and how that plays back into the eventual organisation that we hope to see around trade in this country. That leads into questions about structure, about the JMC and the special agreements that need to be made in that and about how we resolve disagreements, should there be any. There is no debate, I think, on whether the UK Parliament has the final say on questions of international agreements. But, as several speakers, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, these agreements will live only if they are implemented properly, and implementation is clearly a shared obligation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations.

Four points came through very strongly on this, and I hope that we will carry these forward. First, there is a genuine need to protect the union and to respect and strengthen the devolution settlement. Several noble Lords stressed that, and I shall come back to that. Irrespective of how we go about things and how successful we are in the day-to-day work, we will need to have a fall-back disputes mechanism that is based on the process of consultation and getting consent but has a structure in place for the resolution of disputes that is not, as people have pointed out, heavily weighted towards the largest member in the room, which is the UK Government—acting both for the UK and as an agent for England, which is of course the most numerous part of the country. So we need trust and we need dispute resolution that commands proper confidence. We also need to work together to ensure that all parts of this work together, not just on the creation of conditions under which agreements can be struck but on the way in which they can be implemented satisfactorily to ensure that there are no disagreements on that.

As I have said already, and as others have said before me, this issue will not go away. We need to test what the issues raised today have got to say against what the Minister, who spoke before me, said. I thought that he was slightly complacent—I hope that he will not mind me saying that—as I think that there are issues here that will not be resolved simply by assertion from a ministerial position. We may well need to pick up and identify further legislation that is required. This is a very fragile situation that we are in at the moment. I urge the Minister to take careful note of what has been said today and to make sure that what has been said today is circulated widely so that the sensibilities raised in this debate are not lost. I am sure that we will return to this at later stages, but in the meantime I would like to withdraw Amendment 26.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Amendment 27 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 28. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.

Amendment 28

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

28: Clause 2, page 2, line 35, leave out “five” and insert “three”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reinserts a Government amendment made to the Trade Bill in 2018. It proposes to reduce, from five years to three, the time period during which (a) EU FTAs can be rolled over and (b) previously rolled over FTAs can be reamended.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is perhaps the shortest group that we have had on the Bill so far. Not only will Members of the Committee be relieved about that, but I think it reflects a high level of consensus among the parties that it would be beneficial to restore one of the elements of the Bill that was stripped out when this Bill was brought to us in this new Session. It was very interesting to listen closely to the Minister’s response on the previous group, where he highlighted some of the changes that the Government volunteered on the previous Bill to assuage concerns that had been raised over scrutiny. Well, I hope that he will not be offended when I say that this is one that should go back in. If he is on a roll—or perhaps the Minister of State will be responding to this group—I hope he will be equally open to some of the changes.

16:00

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lady Kramer in moving Amendment 28. In so doing, I want to recall what the Trade Minister, George Hollingbery, said in moving Amendments 44 to 47 in the Commons, reducing from five years to three years the length of the period for which the implementing power can be used for these agreements. It was part of a suite of amendments that we seek to restore in the Bill. In moving his amendments, the Minister told Jonathan Djangoly MP:

“I hope that my hon. Friend … agrees that these amendments address the spirit of the issues he was seeking clarity on and provide enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/18; col. 266.]

By definition, therefore, as this was part of a package which has been significantly watered down, the reductions now reduce parliamentary scrutiny. These cross-party amendments seek to restore that enhanced level of scrutiny to which the then Minister referred.

Any reader of these proceedings may be scratching their head about why it is necessary for opposition Members to restore government amendments to the previous Bill to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, because the Government have removed them. It is therefore justifiable to question why they have done it and what their motives are. Did they feel that enhanced parliamentary scrutiny was necessary when they had a small majority in the House of Commons but now, with a large majority, such a concept of parliamentary scrutiny is no longer necessary? I can only suspect that this is the case, as the substance of the issue and the concerns about the longevity of this major order-making power have not changed from the previous Bill to this—so why have the Government changed their position?

I very much hope that the Minister’s speaking notes do not include the fact that the lion’s share of these agreements have already been made, so there is no necessity to bring back the earlier sunset clause. That is hardly a convincing argument, as the number of continuity agreements made between the end of the previous Bill and the introduction of this one is marginally different. While agreement today with Ukraine is welcome, in fact some, such as with Kenya and East Africa, have fallen away. As I said on Tuesday, of the 38 agreements the Government were seeking—I remind the Committee that the Government sought to get them all signed in March 2019—20 have been agreed and 18 are yet to be agreed.

There is also the fact that they are not all the same. It would be easy to think that all the continuity agreements are of the same category and age. Well, they are not. Some are first generation, before 2006; some are second generation, which widened the scope to intellectual property, competition and customs co-operation; some are deep and comprehensive free trade areas and others are economic partnership agreements. So some of them are already in effect out of date from the time that we will start to operate with them. It is inevitable that there will be a need to update some of them, and the EU will do the same.

In fact, the process is under way for the EU to update and renew those third-party agreements. What response will we have to a third country when its agreement with the EU, that we have rolled over, is being updated by the EU? Do we keep pace with standards and commitments updated by the EU, or seek to be aligned with the US, as the Minister alluded to on ISDS on Tuesday? Five years is too long before Parliament can take a view on whether it is right to update, amend or adjust some of those agreements, or whether it is appropriate to commence discussions on a successor agreement.

I hope that the Minister will take stock of this short debate and reflect on the fact that a three-year period, which could be extended, is more appropriate than five years. I will close on a reflection on the five-year period. It would mean that no Parliament which ratifies an agreement would then be able to take a view on that agreement within that same Parliament. I do not think that is appropriate. I think that towards the end of a Parliament it is a right judgment for that Parliament to consider. The reality of the five-year power is that no one Parliament would be able to discuss the agreement that it has ratified, how it is operating and whether it needs to be updated. A three-year power would be appropriate. I think that is one reason why the previous Minister agreed to make the changes. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and restore the three-year period, and I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

In principle, I have some sympathy with the amendments. My concern goes to the heart of the ministerial discretion in appointing and reappointing members of the Trade Remedies Authority. I am attracted to a period of two terms of five years and I would be interested to know the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in reducing it to three years. A maximum of two terms of five years would seem more appropriate. In probing my noble friend’s thinking in this regard, I am obviously wedded to the idea of parliamentary scrutiny and would be interested to know whether he does not share my concern that there might be too much ministerial discretion in appointing and reappointing members, which goes to the heart of the independence of their terms of tenure. I will wind up by saying that I think that five years is more appropriate—unless I could understand better why three years and a maximum of six years was put forward on this occasion.

[Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief. My noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed has made the case and I am not able to better it. I just want to raise an underlying principle. I suspect that every Member of this House is very cautious of any power that enables the Government by regulation to change primary legislation of any kind. Where it is necessary to provide that power, there should generally be a principle that the time period is as short as possible and that power is as limited as possible. Otherwise, we begin to compromise the whole concept of primary legislation and the purpose and meaning of parliamentary legislation.

Three years is surely a perfectly adequate time to be able to make any implementing changes necessary as continuity agreements are negotiated and signed. The underlying principle is one that the House needs to pay attention to. Setting precedents allowing an entire Parliament to pass during which period powers are given to a Government to override primary legislation through regulation, even if it is in a constrained environment, is a principle that we must absolutely challenge.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I will call him once more; if he does not appear, we will move on. No. I call the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Labour supports the amendments in this group. As we heard, Amendment 28 seeks to reinsert a government amendment made to the previous Trade Bill, which would reduce from five years to three years the period during which the EU FTAs can be rolled over and in which previously rolled-over FTAs can be reamended. Amendment 29 would reinsert another government amendment from last year. If the Government decide to extend the period in which to make regulations under Clause 2, any such period should not be more than three years.

In commentary, I must say that I am surprised that these sunset provisions are not already included. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, explained, the Government themselves made the changes last time round. Only last year, they committed to reducing from five years to three years the length of the period in which the implementation power can be used. My argument is simple. Let us put these amendments back in the Bill, so that the Minister can demonstrate the same faith in the department and in the Government as previous Ministers did to complete these rollover agreements in a timely fashion.

What has changed? Why do we face the prospect of not having these rollover periods? What is the problem with having the sunset clause as it is? If it was right last time, surely it must be right this time. I am drawn to sharing the suspicion of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that the advent of a larger majority has made the Government think that they do not need these provisions, but that cannot be right either. When this was discussed the last time round, the Government said that the period would be renewable by agreement in both Houses of Parliament and that they were committed to engaging the devolved Administrations in that decision-making process in advance. I hope that those points still stand and I look forward to the Minister confirming that they do, as that seems a sensible way forward, which I am sure would find agreement on all sides of the House.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)]

My Lords, I will now address Amendments 28, 29, 30 and 32, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The amendments would reduce the sunset period from five to three years and reduce the period by which it can be extended also from five to three years.

I am afraid that I have to say to the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Bassam, and to other noble Lords that, after careful consideration, we believe that the current sunset provisions in the Bill strike the right balance between allowing flexibility for negotiators, the ability to keep agreements operable and providing Parliament with appropriate constraints and scrutiny.

As I have said to noble Lords previously, the Government and I are very aware that at the time of the 2017-19 Trade Bill there was uncertainty and concern from Parliament as to the nature of the Government’s continuity programme. That is why the Government brought forward a number of amendments to the 2017-19 Bill. Noble Lords might be rather bored of hearing me repeat the fact that we have now signed 20 continuity agreements, so they will be pleased to know that, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, acknowledged, we have now signed 21. The United Kingdom and Ukraine have signed a political, free trade and strategic partnership agreement, which will help to further strengthen the partnership and serves as a foundation for a deeper strategic political and trading relationship between the UK and Ukraine. Trade between the UK and Ukraine was worth £1.5 billion in 2019 and we are committed to protecting and growing that trade. Signing this agreement will no doubt help us to do that.

We have now signed 21 continuity agreements and expect to make positive progress with remaining continuity agreements before the end of the transition period. Indeed, before this Bill completes its passage through your Lordships’ House, perhaps I will no longer have to say 21 but can come back with a higher number. I am pleased that these agreements have given Parliament more certainty as to the practical effects of the Government’s continuity programme.

16:15

I stress that our intention for this power is largely to ensure the ongoing technical operability of signed agreements into the future. I humbly suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that primary legislation is not the right vehicle for this. The Clause 2 power is required to ensure continuity of existing relationships and to allow us to implement obligations arising from continuity agreements over time and in all circumstances.

It may help noble Lords if I give some examples of where we see that the power might be needed. In the case of a transitioned mutual recognition agreement, we might need to change secondary legislation to update the names of awarding bodies in third countries, so that UK businesses can continue to trade freely and safely overseas, or we may need to update lists of entities subject to procurement obligations in order to reflect machinery of government changes. Noble Lords will be aware—I have said this previously—of the regularity with which Governments of all persuasions are inclined to reorganise the work of government departments. I will not refer to the shuffling of deckchairs, but this needs to be reflected in the relevant regulations in order to remain compliant with agreements.

As I said, the matter has been carefully considered by my department. Evidence suggests that a five-year sunset period is proportionate for a programme of this nature and strikes the right balance between maintaining our agreements efficiently and providing accountability to Parliament.

We of course understand the need for parliamentary scrutiny and we understand that there are concerns about the breadth of the power, which is why we have introduced provisions including the draft affirmative procedure for any regulations made under Clause 2. These changes will be scrutinised. We have committed to voluntary publication of parliamentary reports alongside signed agreements and a requirement that the sunset period can be extended only with the consent of both Houses. I humbly remind your Lordships that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee gave this legislation a clean bill of health when it scrutinised it recently.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked about the terms of office for the Trade Remedies Authority members. If I may, I will address that point carefully when we come to that group later in Committee.

Given this strong record on scrutiny of continuity agreements and the essential nature of the use of the power over the sunset clause, I invite noble Lords not to press these amendments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I was delighted to hear from the Minister that a new trade agreement has entered the books. Could he confirm that the same arrangements that apply to the Japan agreement will apply to that agreement in respect of the ability of the International Trade Committee and the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee to have view of the documentation and to make a response to Parliament, should they wish to do so?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The arrangements that we have put in place in discussion with the committees for the Japan free trade agreement relate to the fact that we described it as an enhanced continuity agreement, which is why we have been putting it through enhanced scrutiny compared to other free trade agreements. This latest agreement, the Ukraine free trade agreement, will be scrutinised in the same way as other continuity agreements were previously scrutinised.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that response to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, because I think the Minister—and I hate to say this to him—is wrong. Parliament will not have the ability to scrutinise continuity agreements going forward that it did last time, because the Government have removed the reporting to Parliament on differences.

The Minister has just outlined the Ukraine agreement. I was happy to mention it and pleased to hear the Minister refer to it. If that helps continuity in our trade, I support it strongly, but what the Minister described as the title of the Ukraine agreement is not what we had. As I mentioned before, there were four different criteria or four different categories. We had a deep and comprehensive free trade area with Ukraine, and it does not sound as if we are replicating that. In the past, we had the fact that the Government were bringing forward reports to show any differences between the two. I am not sure if it is in order for the Minister to reply to this, having summed up—I do not think it is—but I am sure I will return to this further on. It might even be on the next group. There are potentially considerable differences and, under the Bill’s proposals, we would see that they are considerably weaker. I hope that the Minister might be able to reflect on that during the course of Committee.

I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and can clarify to her that these amendments relate to the sunset clause of the order-making powers. We will come to the TRA elements later on, but she raises good questions that we will discuss under the TRA aspect.

My noble friend Lady Kramer made a strong point.

16:22

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:27

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My final sentence, almost literally, is to agree with my noble friend Lady Kramer. She was indicating that if the purpose of these powers is to implement agreements, then three years is an appropriate amount of time for us to know if there have been any major difficulties, and whether a new agreement should be made.

We will of course reflect on what the Minister has said. No doubt as we discuss the next group, which includes Amendment 36, the Minister will have a response with regard to the duty for the Government to report “any significant differences” between proposed agreements and those that existed with the European Union. I am pretty certain that he will, given our discussion during the adjournment for the Division. I look forward to hearing that but, for the moment, I will reflect on what he has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

It is open to the Minister to respond to the question earlier, should he wish to do so. If he does not, is it your Lordships’ pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

Amendments 29 to 34 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 35. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.

Amendment 35

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

35: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Parliamentary approval of trade agreements
(1) Negotiations towards a free trade agreement may not commence until the Secretary of State has laid draft negotiating objectives in respect of that agreement before both Houses of Parliament, and a motion endorsing draft negotiating objectives has been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.(2) Prior to the draft negotiating objectives being laid, the Secretary of State must have—(a) consulted each devolved authority on the content of the draft negotiating objectives, and (b) produced a sustainability impact assessment including, but not limited to, an assessment of the impact on food safety, health, the environment and animal welfare.(3) The United Kingdom may not become a signatory to a free trade agreement to which this section applies unless a draft of the agreement in the terms in which it was to be presented for signature by parties to the agreement has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.(4) Before either House of Parliament may be asked to approve by resolution the text of a proposed free trade agreement, the Secretary of State must—(a) consult each devolved authority on the text of the proposed agreement, and(b) lay before both Houses a report assessing the compliance of the text of the proposed agreement with any standards laid down by primary or subordinate legislation in the United Kingdom including, but not limited to, legislation governing or prescribing standards on food safety, health, the environment and animal welfare.(5) In this section—“devolved authority” has the meaning given in section 4(1) of this Act, and“free trade agreement” means any agreement which is—(a) within the definition given in section 4(1) of this Act, and(b) an agreement between the United Kingdom and one or more partners that includes components that facilitate the trade of goods, services or intellectual property.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause ensures parliamentary approval is required of the Government’s negotiating objectives prior to negotiations commencing towards a free trade agreement; and requires parliamentary approval of free trade agreements before the UK becomes a signatory to any agreements.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this group follows on naturally from the previous group and relates to parliamentary approval of agreements. In moving Amendment 35, I will also speak to the others in the group.

I was pleased on Tuesday last week to hear the Minister allay the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about the lack of parliamentary accountability in continuity agreements. He said:

“I reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh that the agreements that this amendment seeks to exclude have been subject to comprehensive EU scrutiny processes at mandate, negotiation and concluding stages. We were fully involved in those processes.”—[Official Report, 29/9/20; col. GC 31.]


Yes, we were involved through our MEPs. It is worth developing what the Minister was referring to a little further. I am grateful to him for bringing this comprehensive scrutiny process to the Committee’s attention. It prompted me to do a little more research, because I was interested in what he said.

16:30

The European Commission document, Negotiating EU Trade Agreements: Who Does What and How We Reach a Final Deal, illustrates the stages at which elected parliamentarians are involved and have a say in the process. At the stage of preparation, the Commission informs the Parliament of any proposed agreements. I accept that that is the case here. The second element is that the Commission “automatically sends” the negotiating directives to the Parliament; that does not happen here. The Council then

“adopts a decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations.”

On the negotiating stage, it says:

“When the Commission plans to table negotiating proposals with its counterparts, it … informs the European Parliament about them”.

That would not happen here, under the Government’s proposals. The Commission

“also informs the European Parliament at every stage of the talks about the latest developments.”

The European Parliament may make resolutions about the trade negotiations, based on those discussions with the Commission. Those resolutions are positions which the committee could take on whether the talks should proceed to the next stage. That is not happening here, but it happened under our previous continuity agreements.

At the next stage, the Commission sends final texts to the Parliament. When the Government announced that we had reached agreement with Japan, the Minister repeated the Statement by the Secretary of State. He told me and others in the House then that we should wait and see for the published text, which is very different from what our MEPs were able to have. At the finalising stage, the document says:

“The Commission sends the Council and Parliament the text of the agreement”,

when it is ready for signature. That will not happen here either. Finally, the Council agrees the text for the signing; in effect, that is the equivalent of a Government signing using the royal prerogative. I reached the conclusion that the Minister was right: this scrutiny and accountability by elected parliamentarians was indeed comprehensive.

This amendment, as with others in the group, is in effect a continuity amendment. It seeks to roll over the provisions that UK parliamentarians had in the making of FTAs, which they should also have going forward. I see no merit in disruption to parliamentary accountability. I see less merit in Northern Ireland parliamentarians being disenfranchised twice: first, as they have no MEPs to have a vote on trading regulations covering the single market, which this home nation will continue to be a member of; secondly, at Westminster, where they will have a say in trade agreements that will also affect them. This bare reality is now being seen in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as referred to on an earlier group by my noble friend Lady Suttie and others.

The Government’s discontinuity proposals can be seen in contrast to those of our biggest non-EU partner, the United States. It has been suggested that parliamentary decision-making, accountability and approval along these lines would bind the hands of our negotiators. In the United States, the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act 2015 sets the parameters of US trade policy and the negotiating objectives, as I mentioned in an earlier debate in Committee. Robert Lighthizer, the US trade representative, does not strike me as someone continuously bemoaning the fact that his hands are tied by Congress.

Congress delegates to the Administration the negotiation of agreements as our Parliament does to its Executive, but after the mandate has been agreed by Congress and Congress has nominated participants in the process, the trade representative knows the parameters of what will be acceptable and what will not be. That strengthens his hands; it does not bind them. Now, our MPs will not be empowered much more than being given information that the Government wish to share at the time of their choosing, at their discretion, on an ad hoc basis and not through a legislative framework.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others have indicated how these agreements are so different from their predecessors. Liz Truss, the Secretary of State, says that we will go way beyond continuity in the Japan agreement and have scrutiny that goes way below what was there for the original Japanese agreement. However, the Minister has said that we will go beyond the CRaG process for that agreement—but not as far as the Japanese Parliament; the National Diet will vote in both its houses on the Government’s proposals before ratification. Why will we not have that ability?

Earlier in Committee, the Minister said that

“when negotiating new free trade agreements we have gone above and beyond the baseline CRaG process”.—[Official Report, 29/9/20; col. GC 32.]

Why? If CRaG is so good, why have the Government decided to go beyond it? Why did they feel that they should go above and beyond? What did they recognise as deficient in the CRaG process and something that they wanted to go above and beyond? Can the Minister explain? If his position—I commend him for it—is that the CRaG process is the baseline, why not do this for all agreements going forward and make a statutory framework so that everything is clear? Parliamentary scrutiny and accountability should never be dependent on the discretion of Ministers telling us what they think we should know and when. Last week in the Commons, Mr Speaker warned of this in stark terms. In an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, eloquently made the case that it would be unthinkable to do this for our health system, so what is materially different for our trade system?

Let me be clear on what the Minister has told us: that British parliamentarians were involved in comprehensive scrutiny and accountability for the mandating, negotiating and concluding stages of our continuity agreements and that, for new agreements, CRaG is the starting point and the Government are willing to go above and beyond it—all okay so far. This amendment would put on a continuity footing a comprehensive approach that we believe is appropriate given the scale and breadth of trade agreements going forward. It builds on the CRaG baseline.

Finally, I have reflected on what Ministers have said repeatedly, both during debates on this Bill and previously, about the CRaG process. I reread the Second Reading debate on what was then the CRaG Bill. Interestingly, in his speech outlining it to Parliament, Jack Straw made a point of separating EU treaties from the CRaG process. He said:

“That is because there is already more extensive provision requiring those to be ratified by this House and by the other place.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/09; col. 805.]

Even at the outset of the CRaG process in 2009, a distinction was made that European treaties, which have different processes, would be considered as different from others. In these amendments, we argue that CRaG is the baseline and that we should put building on it on a statutory basis so that there is proper accountability and scrutiny for Parliament for deep and comprehensive trading relationships going forward. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I support Amendments 47 and 98, to which I have appended my name, in particular. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for the clarity with which he introduced his amendment in this small group.

When we come to a later group, I will address the issue of what is lacking and make the case for why we need an international trade commission, but I will not rehearse those arguments now. Instead, in support of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, let me say that, under the current situation of CRaG and the 21 days, we will be in a substantially worse position than the one in which we have found ourselves in the past. Having been an MEP for some 10 years, I was in a position to look in detail at some of the agreements that were negotiated by the European Union on Britain’s behalf. I am sorry to put my noble friend the Minister in this position but it seems extraordinary that we will put ourselves in a weaker position than the one we enjoyed as part of the European Union when we are meant to be strengthening our position by negotiating these deals in our own right. I believe that this area has to be addressed.

Amendment 47 sets out the case for a post-ratification report and a timeframe within which it should be done. I think this is particularly important because I have looked at some of the figures that have been made available to us by both the Library of the House of Lords—I almost said “Library of the House of Commons”—and individual organisations such as the Food and Drink Federation. Food and drink is our greatest export, followed by—I am trying to think what it is called. In all three major industries, including cars and whatever we discussed in Committee yesterday—which will come back to me in a moment—all our exports to EU countries and overall have gone down substantially because of Covid.

The one that bucked the trend, interestingly, was with Norway. I understand informally from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that the rollover agreement has now been signed. That is good to know. Apparently, our exports to Norway went up incrementally in the last year, by some 45%. I would be interested to know what caused that. The situation is that, apart from Norway, we have suffered substantial falls in our exports. I will not repeat at length what was discussed earlier but, because of tariffs imposed on Scotch whisky, we have had a big hit on sales of Scotch whisky to the US. Therefore, I believe there is a strong argument for post-ratification support, as set out in Amendment 47. I would like a good reason from the Minister as to why that should not be the case. It goes to the heart of the case that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is making for the whole group of amendments on why we need to strengthen parliamentary approval of agreements and initial scrutiny of them before they come into effect.

Amendment 98 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I have appended my name. It proposes that powers in the Bill would not come into effect without a parliamentary vote on either anEU-UK free trade agreement or ending the transition period with no deal. I realise that we are looking at continuity agreements and I cannot see why that should not be the case with continuity agreements as well. He neatly sets out why there should be further parliamentary scrutiny and a vote before a future trade agreement comes into effect.

I will look at one rollover agreement, on which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, secured a separate debate in the last Parliament, and that was the agreement with the Faroe Islands. We export the small amount of £98 million-worth of goods to the Faroe Islands, but we import £200 million-worth, mostly of fish. That is again damaging, not just to the Scottish economy but to the rest of the UK where fish is produced. So there are a number of reasons why we as parliamentarians need to keep an eye on the trade flow with these countries. If we are not given the chance to—and I honestly do not believe that the 21 days of the CRaG procedure is enough—in my view, the Minister should come up with a very good reason why there should be less parliamentary approval than that which we enjoyed in the past. I declare an interest, in that regard, as a former MEP.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for so eloquently laying out the issues. In some ways, I hesitate to come in after their vast experience. But, as so often at this stage of proceedings, my purpose in supporting this amendment is not so much in the expectation that every word of it will be enacted—as we are now in Committee—but to make a very important point that I hope the Government will reflect on and address.

We are one-fifth of the way through this 21st century, and on the eve of an era where, outside the EU, we will be more reliant than ever on negotiating trade agreements. Trade policy is simply too important to be determined solely by Ministers wrapping themselves in some cloak of royal prerogative. As the Supreme Court reminded us, prerogative powers should not be used to curtail the rights of Parliament, and in particular the elected House, to hold the Government to account.

16:45

Trade agreements are not just about tariffs and expanding consumer choice. They can also restrict our capacity to decide for ourselves the standards of the food we eat and the way we manage our public services, so of course Parliament must have a role in setting the bounds of what the Government should seek to achieve and what they are allowed to negotiate away in their trade deals with countries that do not share our values or priorities. And of course Parliament must have the right to consent or not to the terms of a free trade agreement, once it has been negotiated. Given, as I rehearsed earlier in Committee, that trade agreements will inevitably impact on matters within devolved competence, the devolved legislatures and Governments must also have a role in these matters.

I do not wish to argue for a veto for each of the devolved nations in all circumstances. Ultimately, Parliament is sovereign and should decide, but Parliament and the Government must consult with and listen to the views and concerns of the elected representatives in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast and, wherever possible, work with their consent, not in the teeth of opposition.

So I support the principle behind this amendment, and the whole group of amendments, to make it clear that the Bill must be amended to reflect the legitimate role of Parliament and the devolved authorities in determining the shape of our trade policy which, in turn, can determine our freedom to act in so many areas of domestic policy. I feel we will need to return to this on Report.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. On the points she made about the relationship with the devolved Administrations, when we were debating the Fisheries Bill before the summer, I was struck by how constructive the relationship with the devolved Administrations was in deciding what the fisheries regime should look like and how it should be administered. There is a good precedent there for how we should look at trade agreements, where they bear on the industry of particular parts of the United Kingdom. We will look at that more as we go through some of the other issues, but it was a very positive illustration of the Government’s willingness and ability to work with the other Administrations.

In this group, I will speak in particular on Amendment 63, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the statutory provision in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. Noble Lords will recall the much-referred-to 21-day period. I am a member of the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee, and nothing I say today is any criticism of the way in which Ministers have been dealing with this new committee. On the contrary, they are giving us the kind of access and information that we are looking for.

But the point is that, in addition to the 21 days, there is a period before the laying of such a treaty during which it can be looked at by the relevant committees of this House and the other place. It is a matter for Ministers how long that is. Once the document is laid, the 21-day limit applies. Amendment 63 relates to the part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act that makes it clear that Ministers can create further periods beyond the 21 days. They can renew that period to allow for such a debate to take place in either House.

Ministers have said that, as a matter of convention, they will seek to allow such a debate wherever practical and where the parliamentary timetable allows. My point is that this should not be, in any sense, at the discretion of Ministers. Where either of the committees in the two Houses has resolved that the agreement or treaty raises issues of sufficient significance that it requires a debate in that House—in the case of either House, it might be critical of the agreement, and in the case of the other place, it could even go so far as to seek to reject its ratification—Ministers must allow such a debate to take place before ratification itself occurs. That is what this amendment does, and I hope it is effective in that regard. It requires Ministers to continue to extend the 21-day period until such time as a debate has taken place in either House where that has been sought by the relevant committee. I hope that is reasonably straightforward.

Turning to other amendments in this group, it is rather important for us just to recall that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—I mean no criticism of him—has retabled amendments that took the form of new clauses at Report in the House of Commons. Amendments 36, 37 and 38 bear upon the issue of a report from Ministers to highlight where there is any divergence between the continuity agreement and the originating agreement between the European Union and the relevant third country. As a former member of the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee of our EU Committee here, I know that we looked at quite a number of these continuity agreements, and the idea that they were cut and pasted is actually rather limited. Even if they were intended to be a cut-and-paste job, as with the Switzerland agreement, for example, we were reminded that they were a bit like Swiss cheese: more notable for what was left out than for what was included.

The divergence is really very important. Where the Japan agreement is concerned—and, of course, I have not seen it, but we hope to see it soon, as the Minister said on Tuesday—it is not just an enhanced agreement; we also want to see how it relates specifically to the EU-Japan agreement. For example, the EU has a most favoured nation clause built in, so is it the case that that is triggered? Will we have a most favoured nation clause as well in our agreement with Japan, so that if the European Union starts to say, “Well, if you’ve given the United Kingdom this in this regard, then we want a compensating benefit”, would that benefit also accrue to us under a most favoured nation provision?

We previously discussed the question of tariff-rate quotas, and there are significant tariff-rate quotas applicable to agricultural goods exported to Japan from the European Union. The question of how they are to be distributed is quite a significant issue. Is the Japan-UK agreement wholly additional to the EU’s existing quota, or is the EU quota being reallocated in ways that will be beneficial to the UK, or is the UK reliant, as we have probably discovered, on the rest of the European Union not using its quota in respect of some goods, in which case the UK is actually dependent on whether that quota is used by the EU? These are rather significant issues, so the point of Amendments 36 to 38 is to require Ministers to tell us about that.

Ministers can quite legitimately say, “Well, that is the job of the International Agreements Sub-Committee to go away and check.” We will do that job, but it should not be a requirement to initiate such an examination. It should be taken as read by Ministers that they should present such a report as part of the scrutiny process. I note that those new clauses at Report stage in another place were actually tabled by six Conservative Members of Parliament.

That brings me to Amendment 35 which, of course, is the same as new Clause 4, which was considered at Report stage in the Commons. I have the greatest respect and sympathy for my former parliamentary neighbour, Jonathan Djanogly from Huntingdon, who was the mover of those amendments, but I will say two things. This particular amendment was divided upon at Report stage in the other place, and negatived with a majority of 63. That must make us consider whether, in due course, we actually want the House of Commons to think again. Are they likely to think again and why would they think again? They could change their minds because this goes to a central issue, which is the Government’s use of the prerogative power and the extent to which they are mandated and their prerogative power is circumscribed by a mandate from either House. It also means some significant constraint on their negotiating flexibility. This is different from the question of parliamentary scrutiny and the approval/ratification process. It can actually support negotiators in that they can say, as American negotiators quite often do, “That wouldn’t pass on the Hill.” They should be able to say, “That would not pass through Westminster.” It is something that we can use.

When we come to look at this again at Report, we should only send amendments back to the Commons which are asking them, in the other place, to strengthen the ratification process and the parliamentary scrutiny leading to ratification, rather than suggesting that we should create a whole new assumption that the prerogative power of the Executive must be overridden by a mandate from Parliament for all of these treaty negotiations. I hope that Ministers will say, in relation to Amendment 63, that they are prepared to see the conventional approach given statutory backing.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on clearly laying out the issues in this group. I largely agree with almost everything that has been said. In fact, I put my name to Amendment 63 not only because I thought it was a good amendment but because the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, looked a little bit lonely there, so I thought I would support him even though we are not natural allies on almost anything.

I am not really one for rules and regulations—I tend to kick against that sort of regimentation—but I am essentially rather law-abiding, so I have quite honestly been absolutely horrified by this Government. They are breaking the law: they are actually sending two Bills to your Lordships’ House in which they ask us specifically to break the law. I just think that that is dreadful. Parliament is actually recognised as the unwritten British constitution; it is the will and the voice of the people. We could make Parliament more democratic, but the Government are actually saying that they do not want to. They are almost saying: “Well, the discretion of Ministers is as good as anything.” No, it is not; that is absolutely laughable. It sidesteps parliamentary scrutiny in the most horrendous way. We cannot let the government majority in the Commons absolve the Government of any meaningful scrutiny. We have to scrutinise and we have to be tough.

I very much hope that, when it comes to Report, we can pull a lot of these ideas together and ensure that we send them back to the Commons and make it clear that we are actually scrutinising in a way that MPs really ought to be but are not. From my point of view, we have to embed binding scrutiny into the Bill and we have to make the MPs feel, I hope, a little bit shamed if they do not support it.

17:00

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 35. One of my noble friends has just sent me a message to say that I was not muted and that Members could hear me cough and laugh. I apologise. I knew that I was not muted. I am not present in person today because, while sitting through last week’s debate in Grand Committee, I started coughing. Lest I got into trouble in the current Covid circumstances, I thought that I should self-isolate. I have since been tested and my cough is nothing to do with Covid—but it was too late to attend in person today.

In Committee last week, the Minister said that he did not draw a distinction between negotiating objectives and a negotiating mandate. I think there is a huge difference between them. Objectives are something which the Government might set themselves. The Government might wish to achieve them with or without the support of Parliament. A mandate suggests something rather narrower and that would be explicit in Amendment 35.

Clearly there is a question over the royal prerogative—whether Parliament should be seeking to constrain the Government. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, pointed out, it should not be used by Ministers as a way of precluding the role of Parliaments.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised some concerns about a mandating approach. Amendment 35 has two parts. The first is about negotiating objectives. Subsection (3) is about becoming a signatory to a free trade agreement. I hope that the Government might consider the two parts separately. I am not expecting the Minister necessarily to accept that Parliament should be mandating the Government’s negotiating objectives—although I would support them doing so. Could the Minister address the two issues separately, because mandating and approval are clearly rather separate issues?

A month ago in Grand Committee, we debated treaty scrutiny on the basis of three reports from your Lordships’ House. On that occasion, I had the honour of speaking immediately after the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. She expressed considerable concern about the role of Parliament and suggested that,

“the three reports being debated show that there is an insatiable beast lurking in the committees of your Lordships’ House. This beast wants more information and more involvement on more aspects of treaty activity.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. GC 123.]

I do not believe that your Lordships’ committees, or the House as a whole, or the House of Commons, are “beasts”, but I do believe that both Houses of Parliament need sufficient information to be able to scrutinise treaties. It is also appropriate for us to have sight of negotiating objectives before the Government start to negotiate. As various noble Lords have already pointed out, the scope of trade agreements is extensive. The idea that Ministers can hide behind the royal prerogative is not appropriate in the 21st century.

These are huge issues. Parliament needs a role. As my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed outlined in considerable detail, the European Parliament has a significant role in scrutinising and approving treaties. Now that the United Kingdom has left the European Union, scrutiny is down to Westminster. Surely we should be taking on that role. The amendments in this group—particularly Amendment 35—open the way for Parliament to do that. It is not a power grab, as I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is about to suggest once again, but a way of ensuring that this parliamentary democracy is able to act as such. The Government should at least look seriously at these amendments.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and to be reminded of a pleasant afternoon we spent last month debating reports from the Constitution Committee and the EU Committee on the handling of treaties. I think it would be helpful to remind ourselves of some of the things that were in those reports. I have to say that that afternoon I was, as I shall be today, no doubt, the only participant supporting the Government, and the rest of the participants in that debate were repeating lines we have heard already and will continue to hear on this issue.

The Constitution Committee looked in particular at the European Parliament processes which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh, and it recommended not replicating them. There was a very clear finding that we should not replicate them, and the committee pointed out the differences with the European Parliament as a supranational Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, earlier referred to Jack Straw in relation to the CRaG Act. Noble Lords might be interested that he gave evidence to the Constitution Committee and advised it that he thought that copying the European Parliament’s processes was a rabbit hole down which we should not go.

The other important aspect of the Constitution Committee’s findings was that we should not fetter the royal prerogative and that some of the processes that have been put forward by noble Lords, and that have been put forward again today, do indeed fetter the royal prerogative, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said. That applies in particular to a role in negotiating objectives. The committee did not recommend that Parliament should fetter the royal prerogative in that way.

That debate and these debates come back to a lack of happiness among noble Lords with the CRaG processes. I remind noble Lords that the CRaG processes were not invented when the CRaG Bill was brought forward by the last Labour Government. Those processes were based on the Ponsonby rule, which has existed for a very long time and served Parliament extremely well on the ratification of international treaties. The CRaG Act effectively codified those processes into law and recognised the role that Parliament should have, which is at the end of the process once the royal prerogative has been used to negotiate treaties.

There has been a lot of talk about whether 21 days is enough. We have to remember that it is 21 sitting days, so that would be a minimum of five weeks and sometimes quite a lot longer, so this is not a minimalist period for parliamentary committees to go about doing their work, and I believe that on the whole that has proved adequate for scrutiny take place.

Coming on to whether extra time is needed, which is in Amendment 63 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, we have to remember that CRaG allows the other place not to ratify a treaty—so, de facto, the other place already in effect has the power to require extra time by the simple act of denying approval of the ratification. That can be done an infinite number of times. The other place does not have the power to make changes to treaties but does have the power simply to refuse ratification, and that can be used effectively if the Government were perceived to be acting reasonably. As my noble friend Lord Lansley said, the Government have said that they will respond where possible to any reasonable request for further time, and I think that that is a perfectly reasonable position for us to be in.

I will comment on only one other amendment in this group, Amendment 98, which seems to be another opportunity for Parliament to disapprove of a no-deal Brexit by denying this Act to come into effect if it does not approve a no-deal Brexit. As we know, the Government do not want a no-deal Brexit, but we may not achieve a free trade agreement with the EU, and if we have to exit on a no-deal basis, that is what we have to do. Had this amendment gone into the Bill we were considering a couple of years ago, it might have had some purpose to it for those not of a Brexit persuasion to have a last gasp at trying to keep us in the EU. However, with the current electoral result in the other place, with a large majority that was elected on a clear campaign promise to get Brexit done, I cannot believe that Amendment 98 has any real place in the Bill, and I hope very much that the noble Lord will not press it if it comes back on Report.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this is the first time I speak on the Bill; I apologise to noble Lords that I have not done so before. I am prompted to do so because of the references that have been made in this debate and in some of the amendments to the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee, which I have the honour to chair. I want to speak not so much about the detail of some of the amendments —I cannot speak with the authority of the committee as it has not taken views on some of them as such—but to lay down a marker. If some of these amendments come back on Report, I may well not be quite so reticent.

I will make some basic points about the job that we have now been tasked to do by your Lordships’ House, which is to scrutinise international agreements—not simply trade agreements, although they are obviously an important part of that. Reference has already been made to the debate which took place on 7 September, if my memory serves me right, on three reports: the report that we had produced on Treaty Scrutiny: Working Practices, alongside the report of the Constitution Committee, which is chaired by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the Lessons Learned report of your Lordships’ EU Committee. As we noted in our report, which is the most recent of them, at paragraph 23:

“all three reports called for greater transparency; a role for Parliament much earlier in the process of negotiating international agreements; and a proper role for the devolved institutions. Significant concerns were also expressed as to whether it was possible to conduct meaningful parliamentary scrutiny within the timetable permitted under the CRAG Act.”

We had a good debate; I repeat the thanks to noble Lords who participated in it. Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, was not the Minister on that occasion, so we did not have the benefit of hearing his responses to those reports—I hope that today will provide an opportunity for him to do so. However, I believe that he shares our belief, if I dare take his name in vain, that parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements is crucial and that we have moved on from the days when it was thought that the sovereign—read now the Executive—could simply enter into agreements without any involvement of Parliament.

I acknowledge that the CRaG process has changed this, at least to some extent. However, it is still ex post facto—after the agreement has been made—which gives rise to the serious problem that Parliament, whether it is the other House or the comments that this House make on it, has to take it or leave it. Under CRaG, strictly interpreted, it is not until the deal is done that the matter is subject to scrutiny, and then, in the case of the other place, the sole weapon is to withhold consent.

17:15

It is worth reflecting for a moment, as we talk about the respective roles of Parliament and the Executive, on what was said a very long time ago by the great constitutional expert Walter Bagehot. He said:

“Treaties are quite as important as most laws, and to require the elaborate assent of representative assemblies to every word of the law, and not to consult them even as to the essence of the treaty, is prima facie ludicrous.”

That makes the point very well that Parliament ought to have a role in the conclusion of international agreements.

When we looked at it, we took a somewhat pragmatic approach. We concluded, as set out in paragraphs 31 and 32 of our report on working practices—if I may direct the Committee’s attention to it—that we appreciated that the Government were

“reluctant to amend the legislative framework and review the timetable for scrutiny”.

So the report set out a series of pragmatic recommendations, which we describe as

“proportionate recommendations to facilitate effective Parliamentary treaty scrutiny, without the need for legislative change.”

We concluded, in paragraph 32, that:

“Time and experience will tell whether it is possible to conduct meaningful scrutiny within the current timescales. Much will depend on how far the Government is willing to share information in advance of laying an agreement under the CRAG Act.”

I immediately recognise, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—who also sits on the committee—a tribute to what has happened so far and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. He has been making an effort to make sure that our committee is kept informed of what is taking place. Indeed, we are due to see him again on Monday. That leaves us following the pragmatic approach to see how it goes. We also gave clear warning in that report that, if we do not think we are able to do the job we have been given, we will not hesitate to push for legislative change. The Bill and the amendments being made may pre-empt that.

I emphasise, as have the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Smith of Newnham, the big change that has taken place in relation to agreements. It is one of the reasons that our committee was established: no longer will agreements, trade agreements in particular, have the detailed scrutiny that took place through the EU process, which involved Members who pursued British interests. I understand that is why the Government say there is less need for scrutiny of continuity agreements, but we are also looking at the possibility of new agreements. We have already started to inquire into the United States, Australia and New Zealand, where there will not be the benefit of scrutiny engaged in by any EU body.

We very much welcome the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and the department he represents, but whether that is sufficient is under consideration and it is important to know whether it works. Our report raises concerns, some of which have been raised in some of the amendments: consultation of the devolved Administrations; keeping us informed and advised of negotiations; and early sight of the text, because of the timetable. Given those, it follows that, if the Government were to accept, for example, the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, we would be content. I do not anticipate that happening, but it does not mean that we should not consider the amendments that have been put forward. We will be looking closely at the main issue of the terms and processes for scrutiny. The way we do our work will follow through and, ultimately, take a view on whether there is enough in the process to enable us to do the job that I said we need to do.

Let me turn specifically to one aspect. It seems to me that, in his Amendment 63, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely right. I, too, would expect the Government to allow the time for debate—that is a critical part of the process that we are engaged in—but would it not be better if that were guaranteed, rather than us having to depend on the good will and discretion of the Government?

I too look forward to hearing what the Government say but, overall, this debate and these amendments give the Government an opportunity to show that they are truly committed to the role of Parliament in scrutiny. Obviously, warm words will not be enough, however sincerely they are expressed. Of course I recognise that the roles of the Executive and Parliament are different, but Parliament has a major role in the scrutiny of international agreements, and we hope that the Government will find a way to make sure that that is effective.

I agree with those who have said that, as we have seen in the international comparisons that we have looked at, having parliamentary involvement can give government negotiators a weapon—that is, an additional piece of leverage so that they can tell their interlocutors why they do not think that a particular thing being negotiated for will pass through the parliamentary process.

So I very much look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and other noble Lords have to say. If we come back to this matter in amendments on Report, I will look forward to saying more about it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead.

[Baroness Fairhead (Con)]

My Lords, before I turn to the amendments, I will begin by welcoming my noble friend the Minister to the House most warmly, as this is the first time that I have spoken on the Trade Bill since he assumed his role. As I have been participating both remotely and in person, I congratulate him not only on his clear grip of the subject matter but on the assuredness with which he has steered the Bill through. I am particularly struck by the effective working relationships that he appears to have developed with my noble friends and with Members across the House. I have little doubt that, combined with his experience and superb track record, this will enable him to be a very effective and enormously respected Member of this House.

I am delighted that the Trade Bill has returned to your Lordships’ House, not because we shed much blood, sweat and tears over its previous incarceration—although we did—but because it is an important Bill for the UK, her businesses and her people. It creates important tools that we will need for the UK to step into the future as a strong, independent and high-integrity trading partner. I am also happy that it remains, in the words of my noble friend the Minister, all about continuity and certainty—two elements that businesses large and small, up and down the country, really value.

However, that does not mean that the Bill cannot be made even better. As I have said on the Floor of the House and as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, rightly recalled last week, it is my view that

“no legislation passes the scrutiny of this House without being improved”.—[Official Report, 6/3/19; col. 615.]

That is why I want to speak to Amendments 57 and 63 in particular, and to address the issues of transparency, engagement and parliamentary scrutiny. I have one question and one request for the Minister, both of which I will come to.

I want to be clear that I am not speaking about transparency, engagement and scrutiny of continuity trade agreements that are expected to have no significant changes. I agree with my noble friend the Minister that they have already undergone rigorous scrutiny in both the EU and the UK, and I am content that the Government will continue to publish parliamentary reports for the remainder of such agreements that are transitioning. Further, I note that any secondary legislation required to implement these agreements will be subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring debates in both Houses. However, it is here that I have my question. Can my noble friend confirm that this Bill’s scrutiny provisions apply exclusively to continuity trade agreements and cannot be used for future trade agreements, for it strikes me that the wording could be construed as so doing?

Turning to the future free trade agreements, a number of your Lordships have highlighted the importance and extensive reach of modern FTAs. They cover areas far beyond trade alone and include, among others, geopolitical commitments and environmental, food and other standards. Your Lordships have also highlighted the transparency and genuine engagement permitted by the previous scrutiny process to bodies such as civil groups, industry bodies, trade unions and many more, not least the devolved nations. Let us be clear: transparency with no ability to engage is a much weaker proposition.

Finally, a number of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Lilley, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, have previously highlighted—as did my noble friend Lord Lansley today—the benefit of having a rigorous scrutiny process which, properly structured, can have the benefit of strengthening, not weakening, one’s negotiating hand. To be clear, I am not suggesting any change to the fundamental constitutional principle that underpins the negotiation of all international treaties, including FTAs: that the making and amending of, and withdrawing from, such treaties is a royal prerogative function.

However, taking all this into account, I continue to believe that further detail and improvement is required in both transparency and engagement with wider audiences and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny. I shall direct my comments to two main amendments: Amendment 57 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and Amendment 63 in the names of my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, as they aim to address these issues. They have been laid out elegantly by those who have put them forward. On Amendment 63, I agree strongly with words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that the ability to have a debate, if an issue has been raised on any of the future FTAs, is important. On Amendment 57, I support some, but not all, of its provisions. I very strongly support the need to consult. I am not fully seized by the concept of a mandate rather than objectives, but I think there are elements in Amendment 57 that should be considered and pondered by the Government.

Let me turn to transparency and engagement. Clearly, transparency needs to respect the commercial, confidential elements of negotiations. That said, interested parties across the UK need to have sufficient information in a timely fashion about the areas of discussion, the ability to submit their views and objectives and clear mechanisms for feeding in and engaging. The Government have established a number of bodies to enable this to happen: the Strategic Trade Advisory Group and 11 sector-based trade advisory groups. This is a terrific start, but I encourage the Government to ensure that those bodies are kept under review, to ensure that the appropriate, rich level of engagement is achieved to enable businesses to contribute.

Turning to parliamentary scrutiny, I realise that the Command Paper of February 2019 is not binding on this Government, but I am happy to observe that it has been complied with in practice. It is an excellent base from which to build. It required the previous Government to produce an outline approach to negotiations, including its objectives, and it had to be accompanied by a detailed economic analysis. It also committed the Government to publishing progress reports after each negotiating round, and annual trade reports across all live negotiations.

17:30

I was also encouraged by the Minister’s opening speech at Second Reading in which he referred to the proposal by the International Trade Committee of the other place for a structure providing such scrutiny and confirmed that the department was working with it and the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, on which my noble friend Lord Lansley also sits, and taking it very seriously. This could enable the UK to benefit from the rich experience of a number of your Lordships, with information being shared on a confidential basis to allow Parliament to scrutinise negotiations effectively from the start to the finish and throughout the process. This route should also allow for the committee reports to require further scrutiny in both Houses, at a minimum highlighting areas of concern to be debated.

However, I believe it is for the Government to bring forward detailed, specific plans on transparency, engagement and effective parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that working with and through the committees of this House and the other place and any successors that this Parliament deems appropriate is the way to go. That is why, although I support the underlying merits of these amendments, I do not intend to support them at this stage. However, I have a request and I urge the Minister to expedite the work with the IAC and the ITC to consider specifically the elements of Amendments 57 and 63 and to bring forward clear, satisfactory plans for enhanced transparency, genuine engagement and rigorous comprehensive scrutiny by Report or as soon as practicable after that.

[The Lord Bishop of Blackburn]

My Lords, having made my maiden speech a week or so ago at Second Reading of the Bill, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for proposing Amendment 35, to which I wish to speak, without, I have to say, the expertise of other contributors, but I shall speak in favour of the amendment on two counts, only simply, as I do not wish to repeat what has already has been said.

First, the need for parliamentary support in both Houses at a preparatory stage of reaching a trade agreement by setting objectives is wise and prudent. If parliamentary support in agreeing those objectives is required only once work on an agreement has begun and is in its later stages, it will prove nearly impossible for Parliament to wind the clock back, debate the objectives and revise a carefully crafted piece of work that has already begun. Undoing what has been worked on over a period with the other party in that agreement could also do serious damage to relationships and could threaten the finalising and reaching of an agreement, so early scrutiny by both Houses on objectives is essential. I know the argument against that position is that it might delay the process with lengthy debates and endless amendments on all kinds of detail, but surely a mechanism could be found to speed up the process even, say, in this House, and enable a fair wind to be given to agreeing the necessary objectives. Once such objectives have been agreed in one instance surely those that follow will not prove to be very different and could proceed more speedily. Agreements will vary hugely, but objectives will remain much the same.

The second reason for my support for Amendment 35 is that paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of the proposed new clause calls for a sustainability impact assessment on

“food safety, health, the environment and animal welfare.”

Selecting just two of that list, the NHS and agriculture, both need to be protected from agreements driven solely by lucrative financial gains. No one can argue against shrewd business arrangements, but finance is not the only factor to be considered. The duty to ensure the future of our fragile farming industry is crucial. Any trade deal that strengthens the decline of that sector is unwelcome. Any trade deal that advocates or allows the further dismantling or privatisation of the NHS must be resisted, and this amendment gives a strong assurance that those protections are guaranteed and are in place for years to come. We have to keep in mind more than just the present. Those who follow after us will pick up the consequences of our decisions and it is because of the seriousness of these concerns that the Bill without Amendment 35 is lacking. I give my wholehearted support to the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of all the amendments in this group. This is perhaps a paradox, as they may—to some extent—be mutually exclusive. They also touch on a number of other amendments on the agenda of today’s proceedings.

As I said in Committee on Tuesday, the congruence of leaving the European Union and the royal prerogative in a world which is very different from the 1960s and 1970s, leaves much domestic policy, in practice if not in theory, beyond Parliament’s reach. Since the United Kingdom Government are accountable to the United Kingdom Parliament for all their activities, both inside and outside the jurisdiction, Parliament has a genuine locus to impose—or at least place—a framework around government activities abroad. These activities directly determine what happens in this country.

Now that we have left the European Union, we are in reality—to put it in crude terms—tarting our way around the foreign and trade ministries of the world in search of improved and new agreements. This is an inherent consequence of Brexit. In the circumstances, it is the only sensible response to where we find ourselves. I have no complaints about this, though being a suppliant does not necessarily enhance one’s negotiating strength.

My complaint is about the goods we have for sale. Everything is more or less on the table, as is generally the case in the grubby world of politics and, for that matter, in the marketplace. Almost everything is for sale unless it is expressly stated that it is not. There are some things which should be stated as non-negotiable from the outset. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Lansley and agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. In a negotiation, there is a difference between boundaries and aspirations. This is illustrated by the slightly surprising combination of the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Forsyth and Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, signing the same amendment which we shall discuss later in the passage of this Committee.

Sometimes it is appropriate to simply say “no” as, for example, in the case of the topical, but historic—and not completely analogous—piece of legislation which ended slavery in the British Empire. There was no more argument after that. In the real world, a policy statement leaves the matter in question on the table and hence in play. As a number of noble Lords have said, the CRaG Act is weak and reactive, not proactive. I believe a strong framework is needed around all the Government’s activities in this area, as these amendments propose. At this stage, I am not concerned by the minutiae. Others in this debate know much more about this than I do.

No doubt, the Government will say that they need flexibility to negotiate. They do. All Governments do, wherever they are and however they operate. They should not cross our domestically generated red lines. This was what taking back control was all about. It is the logical corollary of Brexit.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 35 on parliamentary scrutiny. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for tabling it. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I felt she was a little bit nostalgic for the European Parliament. That was not surprising. I have felt it too. It is not nostalgia we need but the procedure and ideas that came from the European Parliament when we are discussing CRaG. I will leave it at that.

However, I was encouraged by the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, earlier on the enhanced scrutiny process, and of course this is only the preamble for Report, which will be very important. I hope and expect that the Minister will be sympathetic to this amendment. He should be, because I believe the Government have been working hard to stretch the CRaG framework above the baseline so that they can then cover a range of issues. For example, the new FCDO is looking at improving the EMs on human rights, and in Committee we have already covered matters such as food safety, health and the environment, which are all to be covered by a sustainability EM, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. All these issues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, so sensitively mentioned, and as the Minister knows, are of huge importance and concern to the public, and they will loom large in the US deal. I know we are dealing with Parliament now, but we are also aware of the public.

Amendments 36 to 38 are also needed because they set out the terms of the reporting arrangements required by Parliament for every relevant free trade agreement so that it can be examined and debated properly within the narrow timeframe of 21 days. I was fascinated by the conversation of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about Amendment 63, which we will come back to.

NGO and trade union interest in trade deals and fair trade these days is at a much higher technical level and, although stakeholders and civil society are consulted in advance, they also need to be properly informed after negotiations are over and as every deal passes through Parliament. That is part of the process described in these amendments. We owe a lot to Jonathan Djanogly, as has been mentioned, and while I am not sure why reporting comes up in later amendments, I support those too.

The Bill is restricted to rollover agreements, but I understand from previous ministerial replies and statements that the Government are generally and genuinely ready to listen to suggestions and, as has been said, open to improving if not amending the CRaG process. We all look forward to the Minister’s confirmation of this.

Reporting on an agreement is also important for the scrutiny committees themselves, because it is part of their mandate to follow its progress in the months following ratification. I think we were grateful for the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. The recently concluded Japan agreement, which we will shortly all be examining, will provide the first test of these arrangements.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all concerned for contributing to this debate, which has been of a very high standard. We should all acknowledge and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, for deciding to use this opportunity to speak to the Committee about her experiences on the 2018-19 Bill. I was sorry to hear about the blood and sweat, although I can confirm that there was just as much on our side of the table as I am sure she was correct in describing was on hers. If there were any tears, I do apologise for that; we did not have those, and I am sorry if we were guilty of inflicting them.

Because we have a range of amendments here around this topic, we have a variety of suggestions for the Government to consider on how they might engage formally with Parliament. The common thread for all of them is that they build on steps already taken and, as others have said—I support this—many of these are very welcome indeed. Amendment 35 in particular sets a very high standard at the top end of the scale, where all approvals and all considerations of final remit have to be done by both Houses of Parliament, with full engagement with the devolved Administrations. There are some very good points in this amendment, which, broadly speaking, goes with the grain of where we are coming from. However, as other noble Lords have said, this may well not be the time to repeat this amendment back to the Commons, because it was considered and defeated at that stage. I take very strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, said: namely, that there are elements in what is in front of us today that would allow for some progress to be made. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to signal his willingness to engage further with us when he comes to respond.

17:45

Perhaps I may speak to the amendments which are in my name or related to them. Amendment 47 has a slight change of gear. We know that most rollover agreements are still being done in very short order—we heard about the new one today. There are a lot still to come, but further negotiations may well also be required once they are done. This amendment tries to pick up that thought. Once we have passed the transition period and the free trade agreement with the EU, if there is one, is signed and implemented, and once the broader picture emerges of where the UK stands on international trade, it is almost certain that we will be back in negotiations on nearly all of the 40 rollover agreements that we have already approved. So the suggestion in Amendment 47 is that there would be a five-year review period of those agreements, particularly to facilitate our engagement there.

Amendment 53, which is in my name, sets the scene for a much more ambitious rolling programme of five-year reviews of the functions of each of the FTAs approved under the Bill, which can include all of them, not just rollovers. It lists an ambitious range of considerations to be brought into the review, which I hope will commend itself to the Minister. I look forward to his positive response. In particular, it focuses on our involvement with developing countries, as specified in Section 10 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, which we have not had the opportunity to discuss but which is relevant to the whole process of trade. It perhaps needs more attention than we have given it in this debate so far.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her support of Amendment 98. Despite the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it is not about refighting Brexit; she may not have noticed but we have left the EU. This amendment tries to put Parliament back in the picture to debate the outcome of the current negotiations with the EU on a free trade agreement. We do not really know where we are on this. We understand that progress is still being made and that both sides are still discussing, but each side seems as skilled as the other in disinformation and threats. We are not therefore certain about where it is going.

But I think it is fair to point out that in their election manifesto the Government put forward the suggestion that they would be able to negotiate a deal easily, which they described as “oven-ready”. It is only appropriate that, if there is a deal, Parliament should have the chance to debate and approve it; or, if there is no deal, Parliament should still have the chance to debate and approve that. This is not about refighting old battles. It is suggesting that Parliament should have a place going forward in these issues. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this suggestion.

In a quick tour d’horizon of this group, I come to Amendment 57, which is in my name and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, whom I thank. I would also like to talk about Amendment 63. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, I see quite a lot of commonality in the approach to this issue through these amendments. I wonder whether we could have further debates about this outside Committee. Amendment 57 would build on the amendment agreed by the House of Lords in March 2019. As I hope the Minister agrees, it also builds on the work the Government have done in involving the Select Committee on International Trade and the EU Sub-Committee on International Agreements. In saying this, I endorse the comments made by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, who spoke very powerfully earlier in the debate.

As other noble Lords have said, Amendment 57 tries to finesse the current ad hoc arrangements, brought in by agreement between the Government and the Select Committees, and the very limited parliamentary scrutiny that the Government can provide under the CRaG Act of 2010 which, as everyone has said, suffers mainly because it is ex post hoc and because it is nuclear in terms of how it can be dealt with. In this regard I welcome Amendment 63 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley; crucially, it would secure the time for a debate on any future trade deal because it would ensure that the Government honoured their commitment to provide the space for the committees, and Parliament, to have the appropriate debates. It does not get over the question of why we are dealing with this in an ex post hoc arrangement, but it does give us the timeframe that is missing from the debate.

So I say to the Minister that Amendment 57 may well be too detailed, and that the current arrangements for how committees consider all the documentation and paperwork provided are sufficient to ensure that proper scrutiny is given. But, as others have said, I wonder whether this is the time to get this into the Bill and ensure that it is appropriately laid out for the future. There is no other country which denies its Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise trade Bills, and no other area of public policy which is off-limits to Parliament. These omissions stand starkly exposed by the debate today.

I have been trying to step back from the individual words of the amendments and to understand why the Government are so adamantly against agreeing to open up deals to better and, more importantly, appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. With a majority of 80, they have control over the elected House, so it cannot be a matter of simple arithmetic. They have already promised most of the collaboration requested of them by the committees and their attempts to engage with wider civic society is heading in the right direction. They say that the CRaG Act 2010 gives Parliament the final say, even though it is patently obvious that, by controlling the timetable and framing the debate around a negative procedure, this is in truth a conditional and not a wholehearted engagement.

This boils down to the simple question of whether, by changing the CRaG Act process and agreeing to parts of what is in Amendment 57, you can get something that would be workable in the short and medium terms and for the long term, subject always to the experience that has been gained as we go ahead. When you add in the credit that the Government would get for stepping away from the absurdity of using the royal prerogative powers, the increase in credibility at the negotiating table that would come from the requirement to get parliamentary approval for deals being negotiated, the better decision-making and input that could flow from using the skills and expertise of both Houses across the wide range of topics that are now included in trade deals and the strengthened position in negotiations that would come from all the devolved Administrations, you have to ask what is really going on here. When people struggle to explain why they are trying to shore up their weak position and will not engage, there has to be another agenda. What is it?

The whole purpose of Parliament is scrutiny and the process requires active engagement. The Government are hiding behind the royal prerogative in order to behave like a despotic ruler of ancient times. This debate has once again demonstrated that the status quo on parliamentary scrutiny is just not acceptable to this House, to civic society or to the people of this country. I am sure that we could find a mutually acceptable way forward and I appeal to the Minister to use the time that we will have before Report to find a common, sensible solution and a way forward.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments that I will speak to now all relate to the crucial role of parliamentary scrutiny. Having listened carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I believe that, if one puts CRaG and the royal prerogative to one side, we are in much closer agreement about what the role of the House and the committees should be in this matter than people might think.

Before I start, let me answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on the Ukraine agreement that we have just signed. The noble Lord researches his interventions so carefully that I fear that he was right and I was wrong, but I am pleased to confirm that we will voluntarily publish a report on Ukraine, highlighting the differences between the agreement that we have signed and the underlying continuity agreement. Also before I start, I thank my noble friend Lady Fairhead for her references to me, which were more than kind. I thank her very much for that.

I begin this grouping with Amendment 35, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox. As I said, I believe that the noble Lords and I, along with many of your Lordships, share common ground in so far as we agree that it is important for Parliament to effectively scrutinise the Government’s trade policy and have sufficient information in order to do that. As I have made clear, both at Second Reading and subsequently during our debates in Committee, this Bill primarily concerns continuity for our existing EU free trade agreements, although noble Lords may be pleased to hear that I will not restrict my comments in this debate just to those continuity agreements.

This Bill does not and has never been intended to deal with the scrutiny processes for all our free trade agreements, including those with new partners such as Australia. In formulating our approach to scrutiny of future international trade agreements, we have, of course, rightly and properly, considered the approach of international comparators, including the United States and countries with similar Westminster-style democracies such as New Zealand and Canada. The UK Parliament will be able to conduct scrutiny in a way that is appropriate and proportionate to the UK’s constitutional context and in areas goes beyond that of New Zealand and Australia.

The making of treaties, including international trade agreements, is a function of the Executive held under the royal prerogative. At the same time, it has long been held—and I emphasise that this Government continue to hold—that Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise treaties effectively. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 confirmed, after a process of consultation, the respective roles of the Government and Parliament in treaty making. The Government will continue to support and facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of treaties under CRaG, including laying the agreement before Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days for full scrutiny. Continuity agreements will—and in many cases have already been—scrutinised through the framework set out in CRaG. Additionally, noble Lords will know that we have voluntarily published parliamentary reports alongside signed continuity agreements, outlining any major changes with the underlying EU agreement. As I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I can confirm that we will continue to publish these reports for remaining continuity agreements.

I will set out for noble Lords what the Government have committed to in this area, because I believe that we have moved significantly from our original position, having listened to the views shared by colleagues across both Houses. The Government have committed that, before we begin FTA negotiations, we will publish our negotiating objectives, alongside a response to the public consultation, and an initial economic assessment. In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, this is the mandate that we give our negotiators and it is covered by the royal prerogative. I understand that the noble Baroness finds this old-fashioned, but that is the way our constitution works. I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Noakes spoke in confirmation of this.

This has already been undertaken for our negotiations with the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. In its most recent report, the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee praised the Government’s approach to pre-negotiation information sharing, stating that these publications had been helpful in initiating its scrutiny work. We feel that we have nothing to hide in this area. In addition, the Government have committed to keeping Parliament updated on the progress of negotiations. We have done this throughout current new FTA negotiations, with I and my fellow Trade Ministers having met with a large number of colleagues to update on progress and discuss trade policy issues. I have always been keen—and have held round tables and briefing sessions—whenever there have been new developments to discuss. I can absolutely confirm that throughout, we have engaged and will continue to engage, closely with the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee—the IAC—in your Lordships’ House and the International Trade Committee in the other place. I have taken steps in my department to ensure that we treat the IAC absolutely on all fours with the ITC, which clearly should be the appropriate way that we interact with your Lordships’ committee.

17:59

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

18:05

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

It must have been hard enough following my remarks without a break, so I hope that noble Lords do not find it even harder now.

Once an FTA has been negotiated, it will need to be implemented and ratified. I remind the Committee that free trade agreements cannot of themselves change domestic law. If changes to legislation are required, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and approve them in the normal way. I hope that this demonstrates that the Government are committed to Parliament being able to scrutinise future trade agreements. I will amplify these comments in a moment.

Regarding the devolved Administrations, international relations, including the negotiation of free trade agreements, are a reserved matter under the devolution settlements. The suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about giving the DAs a formal role would not therefore be appropriate, but as we heard from my noble friend Lord Younger, there are many points of contact between the DAs and the Government on these matters. The UK Government will therefore be acting on behalf of the whole of the UK in free trade agreement negotiations, and our overall principle is to ensure that all parts of the UK benefit from any deal. As a reserved matter, it would not be appropriate to give the devolved Administrations a statutory role, as opposed to an informal role, in international trade negotiations.

Of course, the UK Government recognise that modern trade deals cover an increasingly wide scope and interact with areas of devolved competence. As such, we recognise that the devolved Administrations have an interest in international trade policy and DIT works closely with them to deliver policy that reflects the interests of all parts of the UK. In recognition of the importance of this relationship, we have recently launched a new ministerial forum for trade with the devolved Administrations. This has already met to discuss our approach to FTA negotiations and will meet regularly as negotiations progress.

In line with our commitment, the Government have already published an initial economic assessment for each of the new FTAs we are currently negotiating. Once negotiations have concluded, we will publish an updated assessment based on what has been negotiated. This will be presented to Parliament alongside the final treaty text and an Explanatory Memorandum to aid parliamentarians in their scrutiny role, in addition to the CRaG procedure.

As I have set out, this Bill is not about free trade agreements with countries that the EU did not have an agreement with before 31 January 2020, but, none the less, I trust I have reassured the Committee that the Government are committed to a transparent trade policy and to engaging with Parliament.

Next, I would like to address Amendment 36, which is also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox. Noble Lords will be aware that despite the previous Bill falling, we have committed to and are delivering on publishing these parliamentary reports on a voluntary basis to assist noble Lords with the scrutiny of agreements. We have provided this additional scrutiny, over and above the statutory framework set out in CRaG, in response to the genuine concerns raised by noble Lords.

While it is of course true that we have not carried forward the amendment from the previous Bill, we have not done so because it is unnecessary. We have adhered to the commitment we gave, as our record demonstrates. We have not required a legislative commitment to see the benefit of these parliamentary reports, which have been invaluable in assisting noble Lords with the scrutiny of continuity agreements. Again, I can confirm that we will continue to publish reports for all continuity agreements yet to be signed.

Turning specifically to Amendment 37, we fully intend to publish parliamentary reports alongside agreements as they are signed. I hope that noble Lords will judge us by our record and accept our commitment—including my personal commitment—in this area.

With regard to Amendment 38, in Committee in the other place, my colleague, the Minister of State for Trade Policy, made the astute comment that

“trade negotiations … have a habit of going down to the wire.”—[Official Report, Commons, Trade Bill Committee, 23/6/20; col. 199.]

The eminent businesspeople and negotiators in this House do not need to be reminded of that fact. Thus, it is possible that we may sign a continuity agreement very shortly before the transition period ends. This may make it difficult to leave a period of 10 sitting days before any SIs are brought forward if we are to avoid a cliff edge in trading relationships with the country in question. However, I assure your Lordships that we will leave as much time as possible for parliamentary scrutiny before regulations are brought forward. Of course, CRaG allows a period of 21 sitting days for agreements to be scrutinised in Parliament before they can be formally ratified, which—I hope and believe—provides an effective period of time for parliamentarians to scrutinise agreements.

Moving to Amendment 41, while the command paper was published under the previous Administration —since then, of course, we have had a general election and secured our exit from the European Union—I hope that noble Lords will recognise that this Government have continued to give Parliament further opportunities to scrutinise our trade agenda effectively. This Government remain committed to the key principles of transparency and ensuring effective scrutiny of our trade policy. That is why we have made our own commitments, which I outlined in reference to Amendment 35. Noble Lords will notice that those commitments repeat many of the commitments made in the 2019 command paper.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, spoke about the role of the committee that he ably chairs: the IAC. I carefully read its report on working practice, and I must say that I found it in the main sensible and pragmatic. I commit that we want to work pragmatically with the IAC going forward so that it can do the job that Parliament has asked it to do. The noble and learned Lord asked for my views on the IAC’s report, given that I was not the responding Minister during the Lords debates on it. As he knows, I welcome his committee’s vital scrutiny work. Frankly, I also welcome the praise specifically for my department’s working practices, which the committee, in its wisdom, advised other departments to follow.

On the point made by my noble friend Lady Fairhead, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, we are not just standing still on this. I reassure noble Lords that we are in active discussions with the ITC and the IAC to ensure that we can work together to ensure satisfactory progress for the scrutiny of FTAs. I hope that those discussions will lead to a pragmatic approach that both committees will welcome.

18:15

These discussions include making sure that we allow the committees to produce independent reports before FTAs are laid under CRaG. This is a very important development. It requires us to provide the FTAs to the committees in final form, so that they have time to produce a report before the agreement is laid. This is vital because these agreements are complex and not easily comprehensible. It will be very useful for the committees to go through them beforehand and give your Lordships’ House their view on and appraisal of the agreement. We will work constructively with the ITC and the IAC to allow them time to produce an independent report on the final agreement, aiding parliamentarians’ and the public’s understanding of its potential implications. I hope that my noble friend Lady McIntosh welcomes this.

This goes beyond the bare bones of CRaG but, having listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I am not sure whether he thinks going beyond the bare bones of CRaG is good or bad. I look forward to him clarifying that in his final remarks. I assure my noble friend Lady Fairhead that the powers in the Bill relate to continuity agreements and that new FTAs are likely to require additional legislation to be implemented.

On Amendment 47, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as I have already said, parliamentary reports have been voluntarily laid alongside every signed continuity agreement, outlining any significant differences between the signed agreement and the underlying EU agreement, as well as detailed information on trade flows and key imports and exports with trading partners. The Government are eager for your Lordships to make your voices heard as continuity agreements are finalised, signed and laid before this House for scrutiny in a proportionate and productive way.

Ultimately, our continuity agreements seek to replicate the effects of our existing trade agreements in which we formerly participated as an EU member state. The 21 signed continuity agreements demonstrate that we are not going beyond our mandate of continuity. Therefore we believe this requirement to report on agreements retrospectively is unnecessary.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for the next amendment, Amendment 53. I take this opportunity to reassure the noble Lord that the Government will seek to provide robust and credible evidence to support our assessment of the impact of free trade agreements. In the recently published scoping assessments for the UK-US, UK-Japan, UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand FTAs the Government committed to publishing a monitoring and evaluation framework prior to implementation of those agreements. We also committed to publishing evaluations of these agreements at the appropriate time.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn endorsed the importance of high standards in agreements. The Government completely agree on this. Listening to the right reverend Prelate, he has taken to the ways of your Lordships’ House so smoothly and effectively that I find it hard to believe that his maiden speech was as recently as the Second Reading of the Bill. I congratulate him on the way that he has found his feet in our House so effectively.

Amendment 57 is also from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. The Government are committed to the principles of transparency and scrutiny of our free trade agreement negotiations, but that does not mean we can accept a role for Parliament that infringes on the Government’s prerogative power to enter into trade negotiations with third countries. That is a red line for us.

The Government have published negotiating objectives for each of the FTA negotiations we have entered into to date. In addition, for each negotiation we have published an assessment of the strategic case for securing an FTA with that country and an initial economic impact assessment on a potential deal. I believe these documents have provided parliamentarians and the public with a clear understanding of the Government’s reasoning and aims for each of the FTA negotiations.

These positions have been informed by a comprehensive programme of engagement and consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. Furthermore, our strategic and sectoral trade advisory groups have provided expert advice to help shape our trade policy positions.

The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House is supportive of our position. Its 2019 report on the scrutiny of treaties stated that providing Parliament with votes on mandates

“would impinge inappropriately on the Government’s prerogative power and limit the Government’s flexibility in the negotiations.”

I think the committee got that absolutely right.

Comparing systems in which legislatures have a role in mandate setting, such as in the US or the EU, ignores the fundamental differences in our constitutional make-up. In the example of the EU, I strongly argue that its scrutiny arrangements reflect the specific and unique structures of the EU and that direct comparison with the UK is unhelpful. I do not believe that the arrangements for parliamentary involvement in EU treaties can or should be the model for parliamentary involvement in UK treaties. The previous process reflected our position as one of 28 EU member states in which the EU Commission negotiated on our behalf. We now need a process that is right for the UK as an independent trading nation and its constitutional arrangements outside the EU. It would be strange if, having left the EU, we thought it necessary to emulate its constitutional arrangements if they are not appropriate for our country. The enhanced scrutiny practices put forward by this Government do this and go well beyond the statutory framework for the scrutiny of treaties under the CRaG Act.

I now turn to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which seeks to amend Section 21 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act to ensure that where Parliament requests a debate on a trade agreement, Ministers are legally obliged to make it happen. The Government believe that the existing scrutiny measures for continuity trade agreements are proportionate and fair. In light of the debate on the 2017-19 Trade Bill, we added the use of the draft affirmative procedure for regulations made, which was welcomed by DPRRC in its recent report on the Bill. Your Lordships should be assured that all changes to UK legislation required from these agreements will be scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the normal way.

I have listened to noble Lords’ concerns about the role this House and the other place have in relation to trade agreements, but I repeat that the Government believe that our existing CRaG processes already provide an effective and robust framework for parliamentary scrutiny, particularly those that have already undergone comprehensive scrutiny at EU level.

I recognise the concerns which noble Lords have outlined relating to new FTAs with trading partners, such as the USA or Australia, although they are not included in the scope of the Bill. I have already outlined how we have gone beyond the statutory requirements of CRaG. Our continuity agreements already undergo an extensive and well-designed parliamentary scrutiny process. The amendment proposed by my noble friend is well intentioned, and I thank him for the productive discussions we have had, but we believe that the current framework for the scrutiny of continuity agreements under CRaG is both fair and appropriate.

Finally, I shall now speak to Amendment 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The amendment seeks to stop most of the provisions of the Trade Bill coming into force unless the UK reaches an FTA with the EU, or the other place explicitly approves leaving without a deal.

The Government have been clear that we are looking to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU like those the EU has previously struck with other friendly countries such as Canada, and those conversations are, as noble Lords will be well aware, ongoing. However, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we will not sacrifice the economic and political independence of the UK and will leave the transition period with an Australia-style trading relationship with the EU if necessary. The Government were elected with a mandate to negotiate with the EU to these ends, and Parliament passed legislation which clearly outlined that there would be no extension to the transition period. It is not for this House to attempt to frustrate the clear instruction this Government have received from the electorate.

Any delay in our ability to implement UK continuity agreements would cause disruption to UK businesses, consumers and international trading partners. Twenty-one agreements have so far been signed and would be unable to come into force, harming UK consumers and businesses. Furthermore, accession to the Agreement on Government Procurement, commonly known as the GPA, will maintain UK businesses’ access to public procurement opportunities, and that too would fail if the amendment were accepted. The Bill also allows the Government to collect data on exporting which will provide the Government with an accurate view of exporting activity across the UK and assist in providing targeted support to businesses in accessing export opportunities.

Before I conclude, my noble friend Lord Lansley asked various questions about the new Japan free trade agreement. I ask him to wait until the Japan FTA and accompanying reports are laid before the House and the IAC has made its report on it. If he has any outstanding questions after that, I will of course be happy to meet him to discuss them.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, compared the UK and Japanese scrutiny systems, stating that we fall short because we do not give Parliament a yes/no vote on the enhanced agreement. With all due respect, I cannot leave those comments unanswered. The noble Lord failed to mention that Japan did not undertake a public consultation or call for input before starting negotiations—we did—and he failed to mention that Japan did not undertake engagement with its Select Committee equivalents during negotiations. We did, and as I previously said, we will continue to do so. In fact, as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, we will shortly be sharing this information with the IAC and the ITC so that they can produce an independent report. I am meeting the IAC privately this Monday to take its questions.

This has been a long and rigorous debate, and I hope it has been helpful in clarifying the Government’s position. As I said at the beginning, I believe that if one analyses the Government’s position there is less difference between the Government and Parliament than some noble Lords have said. I hope that I have sufficiently addressed your Lordships’ concerns and therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received three requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I will take them in order.

18:30

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister but I would like to add one point that arises from what my noble friend Lady Noakes said. It is important that we recognise precisely how the CRaG process works. The Government do not require a positive Motion from the House of Commons to ratify a treaty. However, if the House of Commons has voted that a treaty not be ratified, the Government cannot then proceed to ratify it. The Government can ask the question again as many times as they like, but they cannot ratify it if the Commons has said that they should not. That is why it is such an important issue that, if the House of Commons has received a report from a relevant committee saying that it should consider such a treaty, in my view that debate has to take place before ratification can happen. Legally, however, the Government can use their power to control the timetable and avoid a debate, the period of 21 days can expire, and the Government can ratify. That is the legal position. If the Government have a requirement of urgency, under Section 22 of the CRaG the Government can lay a Statement saying, “This treaty must be ratified”, but that must be apparent right at the outset and not become something to which the Government resort because they wish to avoid a critical Motion in the House of Commons.

We will have to come back to this on Report—we will have to—because there is a risk. It is a small risk, and not something that the Government have been guilty of, but as Angus MacNeil, the Chair of the International Trade Committee in the other place, said a couple of years ago, one has to look at this legislation on the basis, perhaps, that—he said it a couple of years ago—Jeremy Corbyn were Prime Minister. Would we want him to have this power? Therefore, let us just make sure that we think about this, and I invite the Minister also to think about it in the intervening period.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend and I will certainly think about it. The comments he makes are perfectly rational. It is not for me to impinge on the prerogative of the Leader of the House and the usual channels to debate on whether time should be found. Of course, in a rational world, one would expect time to be found to debate a matter as important as that. I will consider his comments carefully.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I have been leader of the House.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I realise that I should have declared at the outset that I am on the committee advising the Welsh Government, at their request, as we proceed through Brexit. I asked to come in after the Minister to correct the assertion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I want to point out that supporting this group—and particularly Amendment 57—is not a last-ditch anti-Brexit move: it is because we have devolved competencies that are deeply affected. Sadly, the Government have not seemed to be adequately discussing with, consulting or bringing into confidence the Welsh Government. Wales voted for Brexit and is unionist. It feels as if the Government have been short-sighted to see the Government in Wales as somehow a cloaked enemy who cannot be trusted to keep confidentiality. The Welsh Government know only too well that the future of Wales depends on these trade agreements and that compromises will need to be made for the future welfare overall, and they respect the vote cast by the people of Wales.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, highlighted many strong points within the amendments, and we must find a way forward. There is a need to bring the devolved Administrations into the inner circle in negotiating if the good of the whole UK is to be achieved. I ask the Minister to please consider that.

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I have noted carefully the noble Baroness’s comments. I am sure that both I and other Committee members will consider them carefully.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I have one more small point. The Minister’s reply to the question of CRaG and how it applies to continuity agreements did not really reflect on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, regarding TRQs, as they go wider than just the Japan deal. The status quo underlying EU agreements and continuity agreements cannot really ignore TRQs and any outcomes. Can the Minister respond more fully on TRQs and their differences and how they are reported on under the CRaG process?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I will write to him and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble colleagues for taking part in this debate and the Minister for giving a comprehensive response. If we could legislate to guarantee a rational world, there would be unanimous support for it in the Committee. However, we will have to reflect on where we have got to whereas the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others such as myself who welcome what the Government are doing voluntarily, think that it should be the basis of a future statutory framework. I do not impugn the integrity of the Minister or his word, as I did not with the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, who spoke so well in this debate. It is very nice to see her making a speech. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, apologised if he had caused her tears because that means I do not have to—I thought it was me. I hope the fact that I have been citing her quite a lot does not give her more discomfort on trade issues.

While we do not impugn the integrity of Ministers, we want a sustainable mechanism. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referenced the attempts in the House of Commons and he is absolutely right that my Amendment 35 started with Jonathan Djanogly MP. I had very good discussions with him but the reason I did not lead on that is that I did not want people to think it was simply a cheeky initiative. It was an initiative by six Conservative MPs in the House of Commons but I think it has genuine cross-party feeling behind it.

I am glad that the Minister gave a reassurance about the report that will come on the Ukrainian deal and on all others, going forward. I am still perplexed as to why the Minister is comfortable giving the assurance that all subsequent agreements will have a report, yet the Government do not want to reinstate an amendment which would guarantee that. We will just have to reflect on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made an important point on timing and certainty and I was grateful to her for giving the example. The noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, will remember the debate that I activated through the CRaG process because the Government had chosen not to bring a debate to the House of Lords. I activated one on the Faroe Islands and the Minister admitted, very graciously, that there could be improvements on consultation because, on a fisheries deal with the Faroe Islands, there had been no consultation with Scottish Ministers. That was quite breath-taking but the fact is that it happened and was corrected, so we were able to move on. It helps that there have been examples of this.

The next point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I want to address it. My noble friend Lady Smith related the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, think some of us are just animals with insatiable appetites to get more and more powers. I am just a wee timorous beastie here; I am just trying to do my best. I am not threatening or insatiable, or anything, but I am glad that she mentioned the Constitution Committee report. I took part in that debate and read the committee’s conclusions. The noble Baroness is right that paragraph 76 of the report said that the committee did not argue for Parliament to have a resolution on the negotiating objectives on any treaties. That is one point. However, she did not state the rest of this paragraph—I hope, Minister, that this is accurate research—but I can quote it. It said that

“for significant or controversial treaties, the Government will want to ensure that it has the support of Parliament at the outset of negotiations in order to secure ratification to the final text of the agreement.”

Now, we are in the realms of how that is done: either through informed consultation and debate, or through having a resolution on objectives in order for the Government to consider their mandate to then be stronger because it has parliamentary backing. That is the area that I am in.

That report was on all treaties. Jack Straw was referring to some of the sensitivities with Spain over the treaty of Utrecht. We consider a huge range of treaties, from relatively minor ones through to nuclear non-proliferation. But, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, there is consensus that deep and comprehensive trade agreements go far beyond simple tariffs and quotas. They will impinge on consequential domestic legislation, and therefore this is justified.

That is why I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, came back to the Minister. It is why Canada, for example—which the Minister referred to—has a federal-provincial committee on trade and a federal-provincial committee designated to agriculture, for example. The provinces are involved. They have a formal role and there have been federal state clauses in treaties that Canada argued for. Canada has a dualist system, as we do. Australia has a treaties council with the Prime Minister, the chief Ministers and the state premiers, if it wishes to activate it. The Minister sought to respond to my comments on Japan. I am glad he did, but he did not—and I am happy to be corrected—deny that Japan will have a vote in both houses of the Diet on the agreement to authorise the formal signatures.

Ultimately, the Minister asked me whether I am happy that the Government have gone above and beyond CRaG. Yes, I am delighted. I want it not to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, at the discretion of Ministers or for us to allow Ministers to decide whether it is appropriate. Going beyond CRaG once means that it is harder not to do it, and I am pleased about that, but for it to pass the Jeremy Corbyn test, or even the Jeremy Purvis test, I hope to have some kind of discussion on a framework.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, referred to the fact that my amendment went through the House of Commons. There was a vote on it. The Government also chose not to progress the amendment in his name. We will reflect on this before Report, but I warn the Minister that there has been sufficient support for putting mechanisms that go beyond CRaG on the statute book to warrant this coming back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 35.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

Amendments 36 to 38 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 39. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.

Amendment 39

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

39: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Conditions for trade deals: Sustainable Development Goals
(1) Regulations under section 2(1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with, the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.(2) Any future international trade agreement not implemented under section 2 shall only be eligible for signature or ratification by the United Kingdom if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with, the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.(3) Within 12 months of making regulations under section 2(1) or ratifying a future trade agreement, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report assessing how those regulations or trade agreement is making a positive impact towards the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause ensures that trade agreements cannot be implemented, signed or ratified unless they are consistent with the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee, which is no doubt fed up of hearing my voice. I declare an interest for this group, as I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Trade out of Poverty, I am a member of the APPG on the SDGs and I was co-chair, with the Nigerian Trade Minister, of an inquiry into trade and development in the Commonwealth. I thank my noble friend Lady Sheehan, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for supporting this important amendment.

The SDGs are a major advance in seeking consensus on achieving major advances in human development. When I took the 0.7% Act through the House of Lords, I did so knowing that we would be putting the platform for our overseas development assistance in statute, and that we would be a world leader, both morally and practically, in implementing the SDGs. Many are off track and hard work is needed to see them implemented, especially in the context of Covid-19.

18:45

The UK has a major role to play, and now that we have an independent trade policy, we need to shape it accordingly. My amendment is consistent with the cross -party, overwhelming support we gave to the principle of meeting our international obligations on aid. I hope there is also consensus that our trade policy should have a fundamental role in meeting SDGs around the world for us and our trading partners.

The Government are seeking continuity in law for trading with the FTAs, and we are seeking continuity in law for trade and development as part of them and for any new agreements. Why do I say continuity? It is because:

“EU law requires all relevant EU policies, including trade policy, to promote sustainable development. EU trade policy aims to ensure that economic development goes hand in hand with: social justice; respect for human rights; high labour standards, and; high environmental standards.

The EU strives to ensure trade policy helps promote sustainable development through: EU trade agreements; special incentives for developing countries, and; trade and development policy.”

I am delighted that, in the continuity agreements, we are also carrying on that approach.

The trade agreements with Central America, Mercosur and countries such as Canada, Japan, Mexico, Vietnam and Ukraine, which we have discussed, all have trade and sustainable development chapters in them. I hope that this will also be the Government’s position in carrying over these agreements and for the remainder of agreements. That should be a straightforward commitment, and I would welcome it if that were the case.

Condition (3) of Amendment 39 would require a report assessing how trade agreements will support the SDGs. Every year so far in our trading relationships through the EU, there has been a report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of free trade agreements, including how they are meeting the sustainable development goals and advancing the trade and sustainable development objectives. We want continuity, and we want the UK voluntary national review process under the SDGs to take into consideration our trade and development policies. I hope that this is not a great burden for the Government. I hope that they will be able to commit to stating that that will be an entrenched part of our reports. For those who think this may be a bureaucratic burden, I highlight that the Command Paper on trade referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, in the previous group, committed the Government to an annual report on trade, either in our VNR process for the SDGs or in a UK annual report on trade. Looking at how we are supporting the SDGs is important.

Amendment 97 is directed towards the preferential support and assistance we should give to least developed countries and lower middle-income countries, as defined by the OECD DAC, by virtue of their special trading relationship with us through the generalised scheme of preferences—we now have our independent scheme of preferences—and the Everything But Arms principle. We had been expecting the documentary requirements for our new GSP scheme for developing countries months ago, in order for least developed countries to prepare for January. What is the status of this in terms of their being able to prepare?

I was grateful for a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, of 5 October in response to a question I asked about the east African states and Kenya; it was very helpful that he replied so promptly. There was a concerning element to that letter, however, where he volunteered the fact that ODA programmes in place to support countries in their readiness for trade agreements will be cut. The Minister said that the Government have, in response to the shrinking of our economy and the reduction in our 0.7% commitment,

“identified a package of reductions in the Government’s planned ODA spend so that we can proceed prudently.”

This will mean that the support for least developed countries in implementing the trade agreements that we have asked them to carry out will be reduced.

I want to say something to the Minister very clearly. This is not discretionary on our behalf; we are obliged under treaties to support them. For example, Article 12.3 of the SACU agreement with the Southern African Customs Union and Mozambique states:

“The UK shall support implementation of this Agreement through appropriate and effective UK funding mechanisms in consultation with the SACU Member States and Mozambique to contribute to implementing the programmes and projects to be developed under the areas of cooperation to be mutually identified.”

Those areas have been mutually identified. It is not at the Government’s discretion to cut them unilaterally—we are treaty bound. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that we will adhere to all our treaty obligations with the least developed countries, which we have asked them to sign and which we are a signatory to. If these are not in place, how can we honour our commitments to the least developed countries in the world in raising the level of capacity that we have said we will help fund them to put into place?

We can already see some of the reductions, for example, in TradeMark East Africa, an organisation which facilitates higher standards and less bureaucracy, reducing border time processing and trade—all of the areas which the Minister is passionate about, seeing trade agreements as unable to deliver by themselves unless businesses and enterprises can take advantage of them. Our commitment to the least developed around the world should be a priority for our agreements, which is why the amendments in this group are important and I am grateful for the cross-party support for them. I hope the Minister will look on them favourably when he responds, and I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We are trying to contact the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, but we have not been able to reach him and are checking to see whether that is due to technical failure. I therefore call the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, whose grasp of the particular issues that developing countries face is well grounded through his leading role in the All-Party Group on Trade Out of Poverty, which he mentioned at the start, and which complements his demonstrated knowledge of trade matters in general. I thought I would be following the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, so I will leave out a bit of my speech.

Amendment 39, to which I have added my name, seeks to ensure that trade agreements take full heed of the UN SDGs, or sustainable development goals, which the UK in no small measure helped to craft, along with an impact assessment report back to Parliament on progress towards meeting those SDGs. Embedding the SDGs in our trading ethos, which Amendment 39 seeks to do, will go beyond mere words and take ownership of a much-lauded initiative that we were instrumental in delivering, defining our determination to establish Britain as a force for good in the world, which is after all the stated aim of Dominic Raab, the Secretary of State of the newly created FCDO. I am concerned to hear about the cutting of the ODA specifically to implement trade agreements with developing countries. That is very disappointing, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that.

If we were to embed the SDGs into the new trade agreements, we would be keeping in step with the WTO, which has embraced the ambition of the SDGs and recognises its own central role in delivering them. The WTO’s publication Mainstreaming Trade to Attain the Sustainable Development Goals shows its commitment to delivering and implementing pro-growth and pro-development trade reforms, and which are crucial to prosperity for us here in the UK as well as for the rest of the world. Without a fair trading scheme, we will not realise the ambitions to protect our planet as we make good social injustices, and that is the purpose behind Amendment 97 in the name of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, with the welcome support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

Least developed countries and low and middle-income countries have a few privileges when it comes to trade with more developed countries without which they would never get off the starting block in the cut-throat world of international trade. I urge the Minister to do all he can to expedite the rollover agreements with developing countries we have through the EU which to date have not been the subject of continuity agreements. The sooner that happens, the better. I think my noble friend Lord Purvis pointed to the east African states and Kenya where that has yet to take place.

The existing concessions for market access for developing countries, such as Everything But Arms and preference schemes, must continue and they need to be guaranteed as we carve out new deals post Brexit. I say that advisedly. The Minister repeatedly insists that this Bill has a limited remit to apply only to continuity agreements, but that is not what is written in the Bill. The Long Title starts:

“A BILL TO Make provision about the implementation of international trade agreements”.


There is no mention of continuity agreements. It is therefore little wonder that so many amendments have been tabled to secure in the Bill safeguards for existing standards that our citizens hold dear in so many spheres of their lives. Britain’s reputation for thorough, open and regular scrutiny, something that the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, remarked upon repeatedly, is in no small measure the backbone of our good standing on the international stage and should not be given up.

Amendment 97 would impose a duty on the Government of the day to lay a report before Parliament on a regular basis assessing the economic and developmental impact of each free trade deal between Britain and least developed and lower middle income countries. This is a powerful requirement, the mere knowledge of which will act as a positive incentive to the Government of the day to keep in place existing measures to deliver the “gold standard”, as the Fairtrade Foundation puts it, in the trade for development policy. That is what we are looking for: a gold standard in trade for development policy. It will go a long way toward securing—I again quote the Fairtrade Foundation,

“an overarching trade strategy that works in support of the SDGs, business and human rights and climate change commitments.”

I shall end my contribution with a few words on fossil fuel subsidies and their abundant use in our trading relationships with developing countries. If you believe, as I do, that unless we stop climate change, we will destroy life as we know it on our plant, we must stop burning fossil fuels. It makes little sense to me that we, through UK Export Finance, continue to subsidise investment in new fossil fuel infrastructure in developing countries as if existing infrastructure will not take us over the two degrees of warming that spells disaster. The argument is often put forward that not to help former colonies to harness energy from oil or gas somehow harks back to colonial times when Britain dictated economics abroad. That is pure bunkum. It is far more reminiscent of the colonial era to lock former colonies into soon-to-be defunct stranded assets and pocket the profits at the same time as we in the west equip ourselves with modern, clean and cheaper energy infrastructure. My plea to the Government is that they stop subsiding fossil fuel infrastructure here and abroad and transfer those subsidies to clean renewables, such as solar, wind and hydro, which present plenty of opportunities to do business in developing countries.

19:00

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 97, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, to which I have attached my name. It is a pleasure to follow both the noble Lords. I particularly associate myself with the comments on ending fossil fuel subsidies made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan.

Since they have already amply explained the amendment, I will simply note that we are coming out of an arrangement as an EU member where there was—as I was frequently forced to repeat during the Brexit debate—the generalised scheme of preferences, which meant that there were no tariffs and no quotas on goods from the least developed countries, except on arms and ammunition. Some of my reservations about the role of trade have already been expressed and will be extended in my comments on Amendment 39. We often hear words about development aims from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, in your Lordships’ House. We can only hope that we will not be damaging the least developed countries with our trade policies. A regular report would be a way of checking on that. This is a modest amendment with which I hope the Government will agree. They could use it to display the progress on one of their avowed policy aims.

I also support Amendment 39, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, McConnell of Glenscorrodale. As I am a regular proponent of the sustainable development goals as a way of bringing systems thinking and understanding of planetary limits into our policies and plans, this will probably come as no surprise to this Committee. I confess—and I acknowledge in advance—that the other proponents may not thank me for my support. I go back to the words of the amendment:

“Any future international trade agreement ... shall only be eligible for signature or ratification ... if the provisions ... do not conflict with, and are consistent with, the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals”.


I remind the Committee that the United Kingdom is not on track to meet one of those goals—to which we are of course a signatory. Business as usual will not do it, for us or for the rest of the world. Globalisation and trade have done great damage to the social, environmental and economic fabric of our world.

I have already referred to the trade and investment requirements of the Zero Carbon report by the Green House think tank. Any agreement meeting the sustainable goals or any such trade would require a total transformation of our current system. If passed, the amendment would do nothing less than ensure a peaceful economic revolution—one that could greatly boost the national steel industry and the growing of fruit and vegetables. It would utterly transform our economy, very much in line with Green Party policy for one-planet living. But that is—perhaps I do the signatories to the amendment a disservice—something more than they intended.

There is no justification for the fact that salmon accounts for 74% of our fish-trade carbon footprint. In 2019, we exported 125,000 tonnes of salmon—48,000 tonnes of it by air—over half of which was flown to the US and China. We also imported almost the same amount—101,000 tonnes. The air-freighted salmon we exported was 64 times more carbon-intensive than the almost identical, if cheaper, salmon that we imported. No trade deal aligning with the sustainable development goals could allow that.

In 2019, just 16% of the fruit and 54% of the vegetables we consumed in the UK were grown here. We have a climate which is ideal for growing apples and pears yet, in 2019, we imported 438,000 tonnes more than we exported. The greatest carbon impact came from those imported from furthest away—South Africa and New Zealand.

Then there is the massive water footprint of the flowers, fruit and vegetables we bring from around the world, and the human misery—literally blood, sweat and tears—in the seams of fast fashion. A trade deal aligned with the sustainable development goals could not allow this to continue, for of course it would be about delivering the sustainable development goals for other nations, as well as for ourselves.

Two-thirds of the 2 million tonnes of higher-grade steel used in UK car manufacturing is imported, yet we currently export four-fifths of our scrap steel, which could be an important resource for making new steel through renewables-driven arc furnaces. This is a sustainable development goals approach that would reshape and largely end both directions of trade.

Trade policy and trade deals currently lock in harms, encourage and support the production of dirty products and fill our shores with rubbish. A lot of it is utterly pointless. We export 1.25 million tonnes of ice cream every year and import 3 million tonnes. Those figures have both doubled in the past decade. Let us think of the waste and pointlessness of such exchange and acknowledge that in a sustainable world, one meeting people’s needs and not trashing the planet—a world achieving the balance of economic, social and environmental goals that are the sustainable development goals—the trade landscape would look very different. I commend the amendment to the Committee and urge everyone to back it.

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad to see this important clause being proposed as an addition to the Bill. I am also glad to see that Amendment 97 is before us. Sustainable development requires a global response and the commitment of all those who have signed up to the development goals. Either we take the development goals seriously or we do not. It is no good joining the world in saying that we are determined to establish these goals and work towards them and then, by something we do in the sphere of trade, undermining the very principles on which they are based. If the Government are serious in their commitment, as given to the international community at the UN, this clause should be totally acceptable. I really cannot see any reason why it would not be.

Amendment 97 is very important. Having spent much of my life working on the issues of the third world, it can be very sad to see how trade arrangements can undermine years of effort towards development and progress in some of the poorest parts of the world. We know that the world is not a level playing field. I have often heard it said by different Governments that one must ensure that developing countries have a level playing field, but it is not quite as simple as that because many of them are not fit to play on that level playing field. There has to be a situation in which they can be brought to be active players on it.

This is rather like what I was saying on the proposed new clause: either we are serious in our commitment or we are not. We have now had set up by the Government this great new department, which brings so many aspects of our international relations together, including overseas development and what used to be the responsibility of a special ministry. We are constantly assured, and reassured, that things are going to be better on the front of commitment to the third world than before because all these different elements are working together.

This is a test of how serious we are and how far those new arrangements are really working for a better lot for the third world. Again, as I said on the new clause, this amendment should be totally acceptable to the Government if they are serious about their commitment to the goals that they have undertaken. The Government tell us with great passion that, in our efforts to determine our post-EU role, we are going to be positive, constructive and key players in the international community. Well, if we want to be that, we must not just pass airy-fairy resolutions and make airy-fairy statements. We actually have to deliver in the nuts and bolts of the world the policies that are necessary—and nothing is more important in the nuts and bolts than the trade arrangements.

[Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in debate, because he brings to every debate a lifetime’s experience in parliaments and in international aid and development after a very successful career as an MP in a neighbouring constituency to my own—although it was some years earlier, I have to say. I must also comment on my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed’s tour de force. His research is so assiduous and he brings it to debates in such a manner that I cannot but sympathise with Ministers who must quail before him, knowing that his facts and figures are probably going to match anything provided by the special assistants that Ministers have available to them.

My noble friend Lord Purvis established his reputation very early in his career in the House of Lords, and it follows very closely the path of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. It is a great shame that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, could not be with us this evening, because he has been a major force in developing the assessment, scrutiny and implementation of the SDGs, following on from his sterling work on the MDGs. He has been great in organising us in all-party groups to go to the UN and discuss the issues which, of course, will be major issues for us in the years ahead.

The MDGs and SDGs are linked very closely with international high-level agreements on achieving aid effectiveness and developing indicators to monitor that. I have had the good fortune over several years to be able to represent UK parliamentarians at a number of these high-level forums hosted by the UN in the developed and the developing world. I want to speak in support of Amendments 39 and 97 and I shall certainly support them with my colleagues.

Amendment 39 ensures that trade agreements cannot be implemented, signed or ratified unless they are consistent with the provisions of the SDGs. Amendment 97 requires a Minister of the Crown to report annually on the impact of trade agreements to which the UK is party on the world’s least developed countries. The 2030 agenda for the SDGs, adopted by all UN member states—we should remember that—in 2015, provided a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future. At its heart, as many of us will know, are the 17 SDGs which are an urgent call for action for all countries—developed and developing—in a global partnership. As some noble Lords brought to our attention today, somehow the rate of achievement has not been up to the levels that we would have hoped, and it is very distressing to hear that the UK has yet to achieve one of those 17 goals.

19:15

The SDGs recognise that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand in hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality and spur economic growth, all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests. The past few years have demonstrated how clearly saving the world as we know it has become a critical issue.

The division for sustainable development goals in the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs provides support and capacity-building for the SDGs and related issues, including water, energy, urbanisation, transport, science and technology. It plays a key role in the evaluation of the implementation of the 2030 agenda and on advocacy and outreach activities related to the SDGs. To make the 2030 agenda a reality, broad ownership of the SDGs must translate into a strong commitment from all stakeholders to implement the global goals. The UN division for sustainable development goals aims to help facilitate this engagement.

Finally, these amendments recognise that all UN member states have committed to the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. It follows that all trade agreements entered into should recognise that commitment and demonstrably keep to it. The implementation of these agreements should be conditional on that fact.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]]

My Lords, first, I apologise as for various reasons this is the first time I have been able to speak on the Bill or this series of amendments. I speak now strongly to support the two amendments before us. I am grateful for all the powerful reasons that have been put forward beforehand, particularly by the proposer, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

Briefly, there are three reasons why I support both these amendments. The first is that, in policy matters, it is always important to think holistically, and the Bill gives us an opportunity to do so on one of the most crucial areas of human endeavour, which is trading. The danger of not thinking holistically is that one aspect of policy may be prioritised above all others, causing an imbalance and consequent diminution of other worthwhile goals. To maximise trade deals with other countries, at all costs, would seriously harm other goods that we greatly cherish. The Bill therefore has many amendments to ensure, quite rightly, that issues of the environment, human rights, labour relations and so on are properly protected and safeguarded.

Secondly, as part of our holistic thinking, it is right to consider the effect of trade deals on the UN sustainable development goals, to which, as we know, the UK is committed and to which we are fully committed as a member of the European Union. We have promised that. As other noble Lords have reminded us, there will be continuity with those commitments. We hardly need reminding that the need is still desperate. While good progress has been made on some goals, for example on primary education, others, such as reduction of extreme poverty, will go in the other direction by 2030 unless present policies change. One in 10 of the world’s population still lives on less than $1.25 a day. Malnourishment, leading to millions of deaths, especially among children, is stark: 3.1 million children a year still die of malnutrition.

Thirdly, despite recent reactions against globalisation, it is simply a fact of life. We are bound up with one another, economically and socially. Trade deals in one area can have effects worldwide, so we have to watch that the desperate search for trade deals, now that we have left the EU, does not damage the developing world, especially the poorest countries. We need safeguards in law to ensure this. As the apostle of the free market famously proffered:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”


These amendments give Parliament a watching brief that the new trade deals do not result, however inadvertently, in a conspiracy against the most vulnerable people on earth.

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendments 39 and 97 in the names of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed and others. Clearly, any trade deals that we agree must be in keeping with our international commitment to the sustainable development goals. We keep our agreements, do we not?

The MDGs agreed in 2000 pledged to halve extreme poverty by 2015. We know that economic development and trade played a major part in that being achieved. The SDGs were put in place in 2015, building on the previous period, and pledged to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030, at the same time leaving no one behind—so you were not dealing with averages. As my noble friend Lord Chidgey has just pointed out, the SDGs recognise that ending poverty must go along with human development through improving health and education, reducing inequality and increasing economic participation, while tackling climate change.

My noble friend Lady Sheehan pointed out that we in the UK led on this. Indeed, Andrew Mitchell, as Secretary of State, worked very hard to ensure that Prime Minister David Cameron led on this internationally. Much of the framing of the SDGs was carried out by DfID, in particular by one of its directors. I had the privilege to be a DfID Minister in the coalition during this period, and was the Minister in the Lords when my noble friend Lord Purvis took through the 0.7% Bill as the last piece of legislation by the coalition.

There have been long years of engagement by the EU on trade agreements with developing countries. There was an important shift in the realisation of how the EU, as a major economic power and the biggest aid giver in the world, could either damage the poorest around the world or assist them. Major engagement now goes into seeking to benefit developing countries and if we are to have continuity, we have to have continuity here too.

As we seek to agree trade deals with such countries, the UK must address the SDGs too. They apply in the United Kingdom, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has pointed out, as well as internationally. We know that this is right, and that it is in our interests. Can the Minister say, for example, which African countries have yet to agree rollover arrangements and what the sticking points are? What happens if these are not agreed by the end of this year? Will the Government guarantee existing market access for developing countries and undertake thorough and timely assessments of the impact of any changes, looking at this through a development lens?

The Government have said that any trade deals with developing countries will be in keeping with our commitments to the SDGs. I expect the Minister to reiterate this. The safest and easiest thing to do would therefore be to put this commitment in the Bill. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for giving me the opportunity to press the Minister on a couple of issues in the context of these amendments. Amendment 39, which relates to the sustainable development goals, is presumably a bit like motherhood and apple pie—something we would all wish to sign up to. Equally, Amendment 97, which calls on the Minister

“to report annually on the impact of trade agreements to which the UK is party on the world’s least developed countries”

will strike a chord with the Minister—my noble friend Lord Younger—regarding his remarks to me on day two of Committee that we want to avoid the unintended consequences of free trade agreements with these countries.

My specific question follows on from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, who expressed her wish to have expedited rollover agreements with African countries. I would like to press my noble friend on this. This seems bizarre. The United Kingdom was at the forefront, since so many of our Commonwealth countries were involved, in negotiating agreements with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. These agreements, I understand, have now been rolled over into—I forget the exact term—European partnership agreements. Will my noble friend take this opportunity to set out which ones have been rolled over, what the timetable is, and why we seem to be dragging our feet on them when it surely must be a political priority, given our historic relationship with so many of these countries?

[The Lord Bishop of Blackburn]

My Lords, new to the work of the Committee, I am impressed by your Lordships’ stamina during this long, five-hour session, so I will be brief, as before. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for proposing Amendments 39 and 97. It must be obvious to any with eyes to see that this planet and the environment are struggling to cope with the impact of our poor stewardship of their natural resources—the beautiful natural world that we, too easily, have taken for granted and abused. Whether it comes from the dulcet tones of David Attenborough, the announcement of the Earthshot Prize with Prince William yesterday or the sight of the damage that plastic waste is doing to so many species in our oceans, does not matter. What counts is our response.

I start by echoing the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that:

“Reducing the causes of climate change is essential to the life of faith.”


It is the way in which we express love and concern for our neighbours. Despite the overwhelming contribution of many so-called developed countries to try to hold back the tide of climate change, less-developed countries will lose most from the increases of global warming, which the Anglican Church feels keenly, because 90% of our communion is from the global south. The sustainable development goals of 2015 pursue a bold and ambitious agenda to tackle poverty and provide a sustainable future for the benefit of all people, wherever they live. It is a moral duty not to abandon those who are suffering and will suffer from the influence, such as ourselves, that we may bring to bear on others elsewhere. Sustainable development goals are a matter of concern for the other. Trade with the UK is more than a simple monetary exchange enriching individuals, organisations and businesses; it is a moral co-operation for a brighter future for all.

Passing these amendments would be a statement and sign of the Committee’s commitment to the most vulnerable in the world. It would express our intent and priority to look after others before ourselves, and will strengthen our relationship with partners around the globe. I hope these amendments will be accepted and find their place in stating the way that we, as a nation, choose to treat others and the world that God has entrusted to our care.

Motion

Moved by

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That the debate be adjourned.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, with apologies to the remaining speakers, I beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned.

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

That concludes the work of the Committee this afternoon. The Committee stands adjourned. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Committee adjourned at 7.28 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Thursday 8 October 2020

The House met in a hybrid proceeding.

12:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Introduction: Baroness Fox of Buckley

Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

12:07

Claire Regina Fox, having been created Baroness Fox of Buckley, of Buckley in the County of Flintshire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Glasman and Baroness Wolf of Dulwich, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Baroness Fleet

Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

12:12

Veronica Judith Colleton Wadley, CBE, having been created Baroness Fleet, of Hampstead in the London Borough of Camden, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Black of Brentwood and Baroness Morgan of Cotes, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Oaths and Affirmations

Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

12:16

The Lord Bishop of Ely took the oath, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Announcement

12:16

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them very short, confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.

Covid-19: Low-income Families

Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

12:17

Asked by

[Baroness Sherlock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on (1) low-income families with children, and (2) the support provided to them by the social security system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

A direct assessment of Covid-19’s impact on low-income families with children has not been made. However, we are monitoring several data sources, including Her Majesty’s Treasury’s recent distribution analysis of Covid-19’s impact on working households. The Treasury analysis has shown that the Government’s unprecedented support package, including job retention, self-employment protection schemes and an additional £9 billion to strengthen the welfare system, has supported the poorest working households the most, with those in the bottom 10% seeing no income reduction.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Government may not make an assessment but I am seriously worried by mounting evidence from Action for Children, CPAG and the Trussell Trust of parents struggling to pay the bills and to feed their kids in this pandemic. We could help by lifting the benefit cap and the two-child limit and topping up legacy benefits, but Ministers have said no and now the Chancellor is threatening to scrap the £20 a week he put on universal credit. I have two simple questions. Does the Minister accept the evidence that a growing number of parents are struggling financially? If she does, what are the Government going to do about it?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I take the noble Baroness’s point well. I assure her that we are considering all evaluations—the Trussell Trust, Joseph Rowntree and Action for Children, as well as Understanding Society, the Covid-19 survey and the opinions and lifestyle survey by the Office for National Statistics. I am sure this question will come up many times today, so I say that the £20 UC increase was put in for one year only. As my colleague the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the other place said, dialogue is continuing with HMT on this, and the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday that it is under constant review.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, in 2010 the UK poverty rate stood at 15%; it now stands at 26%—an increase of more than 1.1 percentage points a year. An additional 670,000 people are expected to be classed as destitute by the end of 2020. I want to press the Minister a bit more on the detail on the supplementary question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. The Minister talked about what has been done. It does not seem to be working. Can we have some explanation of what the Government will do in the future?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I can again confirm to the noble Lord that all welfare issues are under constant review and, as sorry as I am, I cannot say more than that at this time.

[The Lord Bishop of Blackburn]

My Lords, a recent report by the Church of England and the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted the “disproportionate impact” of the pandemic on low-income families with children, saying that:

“Without a radical change in policy direction, the prospects for many families are likely to deteriorate further through the remainder of this year as unemployment rises”


and more families become reliant on the welfare system. Following Prime Minister’s Question Time in the other place yesterday, will the Government do more than consider? Will they commit to making the temporary uplift in universal credit permanent? Will they also commit to a commensurate increase in the level of support for children, to reflect the additional needs of families with children?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

As much as noble Lords press me today, I can only confirm that matters are under constant review. I am sorry, but I am not in any position to make any commitments.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I attach great importance to the work of work coaches in getting the unemployed into work and out of poverty. Is my noble friend satisfied with the numbers of these at her disposal, and with their quality?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I know that my noble friend is a great champion of work coaches. They do a great job and we are proud of the work they are doing at the DWP. I am also proud of the fact that we are doubling the number, spending £895 million. We will have 13,500 more work coaches, 7,500 in the next three months. I am sure that they will do a great job.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in the first four months of this pandemic, 300,000 people applied for universal credit because they had lost their job, and failed to get it. Far too many people are falling through the trapdoor of unemployment and finding that universal credit is not available to them. The Minister has just said that we are going to have a review. Will this be a root-and-branch review? Will it look at bringing our tax and benefit systems closer? The evidence now is that, if we do that, we will have a much better system by unifying the two.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

We are all aware of the difficult time that people are having in these days. I will take the noble Lord’s request for a root-and-branch review back to the Minister for Welfare Delivery. I will write back to the noble Lord. If he has some very good ideas, would he please write and give them to me?

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

Will my noble friend the Minister recognise the work of StreetGames and community organisations which encourage young, disadvantaged people from low-income families to adopt a healthy and active lifestyle through the work of locally trusted organisations, which are the first port of call for many families struggling to cope with the crisis?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I acknowledge and pay tribute to the work of the organisation to which the noble Lord referred.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]]

My Lords, children of school age have had their education severely disrupted, with those in the poorest households affected the most. We know that Covid-19 is passed on through droplet transmission, particularly in small, ill-ventilated spaces. Will the Minister assure the House that no families with school-age children will be evicted during this academic year, to prevent families being placed in bed and breakfasts, with the increased risk of transmission of Covid-19, to prevent mental health breakdown in children, and avoid further disruption to their education?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for bringing that important point to the notice of the House. My best response is that I will go back to my colleagues at MHCLG to get their position on the issue of evictions and write back to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, welcome as what the Government have done is, there is growing evidence of hardship among low-income families with children, most recently from Save the Children today. Following on from the right reverend Prelate’s question, why have the Government not done anything to improve social security benefits for children?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The Government have put £9 billion into the welfare system to help the poorest. As I said in my original Answer, the bottom 10% have not had their income lessened at all. I know how passionate the noble Baroness is about this, and I respect her tenacity in raising it on a regular basis. I have put my head above the parapet and organised an all-Peers briefing session on the benefit cap, with the Minister for Employment, next week. I am sure these issues will be talked about in greater detail then. I extend an invitation to all noble Lords to attend that briefing.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]]

In 1942, William Beveridge introduced his report which led to the welfare state and the NHS. We are still facing the same giants that he was tackling at that time: squalor, want, idleness, ignorance and disease. Is it not time that we had another commission like that, and found an outstanding person with Civil Service colleagues to produce a report that will really tackle the long-term issues facing us?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I can only assure the noble Lord, and the whole House, that the excellent civil servants we have got, and the partners that we work with at DWP, are all the time trying to find better ways to deliver services to people so that they can realise their destiny.

[Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]]

I thank the Minister for her clear efforts in this area. I know that she is very sympathetic. My point is similar to that of other noble Lords. Save the Children said today that 27% of families are finding it harder to find food than they were in April. This is obviously going to get worse over the winter. I particularly want to ask about children: are the Government going to implement the three recommendations in the national food strategy, particularly about holiday hunger? The Christmas holidays will be upon us before we know it and we need a plan in place.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, also raised with me, outside the Chamber, the issue of food, children and holiday cover. I pledged to talk to my noble friend Lady Berridge. I have been so busy that I have not been able to do that, but I give an undertaking to do so and to write to the noble Baroness.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that there was no time for her question. We now come to the second Oral Question, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Polak.

Iran: UN Arms Embargo

Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

12:28

Asked by

[Lord Polak]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support an extension of the United Nations arms embargo on the government of Iran.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer the House to my registered interests.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the UN arms embargo on Iran is due to expire on 18 October. We remain committed to countering Iranian proliferation to non-state actors. The EU’s arms embargo and the UN ballistic missile restrictions will remain in place, as will other prohibitions on the proliferation of weapons to Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

Our abstention on extending the UN arms embargo was an error of judgment. China and Russia were always going to veto, to support Iran. Those three countries are not known for honouring gentlemen’s agreements. We should have voted with the US, to make it clear that we oppose Iran accessing arms through the legitimacy of the UN but, sadly, we chose to leave the US exposed and lonely when, in truth, we agree with it. There are 10 days before the expiry. Will my noble friend the Minister to take a lead and do what we know is right? If not, will he explain our policy going forward? How are we going to stop the spread of arms to the terror-supporting Iran?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I share with my noble friend the intention to stop the destabilising influence of Iran. The United Kingdom abstained because the resolution could not attract the support of the council, and therefore did not represent a basis for achieving consensus. He asked about the way forward. We are addressing systematic Iranian non-compliance. Iran must engage seriously with our concerns, and I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has asked the High Representative of the EU, Josep Borrell, to convene a ministerial joint commission as soon as possible. On what else the UK is doing, we sought to facilitate dialogue between the two positions to achieve a desired outcome. However, as I said earlier, sanctions remain, both from the EU and through the UN ballistic restrictions on Iran.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my registered interest as chair of the European Leadership Network. This is all about the JCPOA and the US Administration’s desire to destroy it, or to make it difficult for a Biden Administration to recant it. The Minister knows of my support for the Government’s policy on the JCPOA: Iran not having a nuclear weapon is a priority for our security. Does the Minister agree that however we may otherwise support arms embargo sanctions on Iran—which we do—we cannot fight to keep the JCPOA alive and at the same time impose an arms embargo relating to the treaty itself?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. While the JCPOA is far from perfect, it remains the only agreement on the table. We continue to press with our E3 partners on this issue to ensure that it is sustained, to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear state in any sense. We also remain committed to Resolutions 2216 and 1701 of the Security Council, which prevent further exporting of arms, as well as the other sanctions from the EU and on ballistics that I have already alluded to.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister will answer both my questions. Has the United Kingdom said anything to the United States about the importance of adhering to international agreements? Secondly, given the volatility of the region, does he agree that very active involvement with Iran is required to build on the JCPOA?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, on the second question of the noble Baroness, I have already referred to the fact that we are working with E3 partners and with High Representative Borrell on that very issue. On adhering to international agreements, the JCPOA was agreed by all and we were disappointed by the United States’ leaving it, but it is important, in order for it to remain on the table, that Iran fulfils its obligations.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to the register of interests and my role as the trade envoy to Iran. While I totally agree that there are many legitimate criticisms to be made of Iran’s behaviour, if we want stability in the region is it not important to recognise that Iran has its own legitimate security concerns, having been—within living memory—invaded by its Arab neighbour and having lost more lives than we lost in the whole of the Second World War? Given that, if we really want Iran not to want to buy more weapons, should we not be more careful about selling weapons into the region—to Iran’s heavily-armed Arab neighbours, some of whom have spent much more on weapons than Iran?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, and I have said repeatedly that our challenge and our opposition are not directed at the Iranian people. It is a rich culture, whether it is Persian, Arab, Turk, Baluch or Kurd—the list goes on. On his wider point about exports of arms to the region, when making any arms sales we engage one of the most rigid processes, and we ask other countries to adopt similar measures.

[Baroness Deech (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I refer to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. There is no doubt that Iran has not observed it, and the United States has called for snapback sanctions. Will the Government comply with these, and how, otherwise, will they ensure that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are blocked?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness about ensuring that we curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. That is why it is important that we keep the JCPOA—an imperfect agreement, I accept, but the only one on the table—and work to ensure that Iran adheres to it.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

On that precise point—how we keep the JCPOA alive—will the Minister say what practical steps he is taking with our EU partners, particularly as part of the E3, to bring it back to the table and to get agreement, with a view, in particular, to avoiding some of the sanctions? What is happening to INSTEX and the special purpose vehicle—has it worked?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we are working with our E3 partners, as he has suggested. On INSTEX, a number of countries have come on board. It was set up so that important sectors such as healthcare could be dealt with, which is particularly important in the current coronavirus crisis, and—I can confirm—the first transaction under INSTEX has already taken place.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister said that the United Kingdom abstained at the UN because there was not going to be agreement. Is that not a dangerous precedent: surely that would be true of many decisions taken at the UN? Should the UK not be voting?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as Ministers at the UN we often take a decision to abstain. It is very rare for us to veto any resolution: it should be a last resort. On this issue, the Security Council resolution is valid, and can go forward, only if all P5 members agree to it, and we will continue to work with permanent members of the Security Council to find a resolution.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, last year the Government were found to have acted unlawfully in selling to Saudi Arabia—another oppressive regime—arms which it then used for the Saudi-led bombardment of Yemen, leading to a huge humanitarian crisis. The Government have resumed sales to Saudi Arabia: how do they justify that?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, this issue was looked at in great detail by my colleagues at the Department for International Trade, including the Secretary of State. As I have said already, we have a very rigid arms export regime, and that continues to apply to all countries.

[Baroness Helic (Con) [V]]

Does my noble friend agree that damaging and destabilising activities are undertaken in the region by many states, including some UK allies, and that the way forward is not unilateral action by the United States—or anyone else—but a collective diplomatic endeavour to establish, over time, a regional security co-operation regime based on the principles of international law and negotiated primarily by the countries of the region themselves?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the intent to get all regional partners engaged on this matter. That is why we believe that on issues and areas such as Yemen it is important, in order to reach political settlement, for all parties to be at the table. We continue to employ our resources to help that happen, but equally we require regional partners to think very carefully: their continued intervention in other countries adds to the destabilisation of that region.

[Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, a stated foreign policy priority of a Biden presidency is Iran—and rightly so. Should that become a reality, will the Government call for an urgent gathering in Washington of JCPOA E3 participants—including, perhaps, Iran—to put the whole sorry mess back on track, and take that opportunity to press the importance of Israel recognition, and Saudi and Yemen processes?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we continue to press for progress on the JCPOA and we await the outcome of the US election.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as it is pretty obvious from the exchanges of the past few minutes that on Iran we are not really on the same page as the Americans, is it not time for a complete rethink of our own Iran policy, making much more use of our old friends and connections in the region, such as Oman and the United Arab Emirates? Would it not be a good starting point to take this into the integrated review of foreign policy and security which, I understand, has just been reactivated—albeit with rather a low profile—and is currently being orchestrated from the Cabinet Office?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, on my noble friend’s latter point, the integrated review is under way and the outcome will, I am sure, be debated in your Lordships’ House in due course. On his earlier point about our policy on Iran, and that of our partners, it is right for us to continue working with our E3 partners, but we also need to work with the United States to achieve a desired outcome that brings peace and stability to the region. In that connection, I participated recently in a UN event, initiated by the UAE and involving Bahrain and Israel, where Israel was recognised by another two countries of the region. These are important steps forward. Israel is a reality and part and parcel of the Middle East. All the countries in the region and beyond need to recognise its status and work together to ensure peace in what has been a troubled region for far too long.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.

NHS: GP Vacancies

Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

12:40

Asked by

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many vacancies there were for general practitioners in the National Health Service for England in July; and what were the comparable figures in (1) 2015, and (2) 2010.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, in 2018-19, 1,398 practices reported 652 vacancies in the NHS Digital GP workforce data collection. Fewer than a third of practices submit data to the NHS Digital collection each year, and it is not possible to make estimates for practices that did not submit data, therefore a comparison between years cannot be made.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. This small reduction in the number of GPs covers huge differences across the country. Can the Minister explain, for example, why there is such a shortage of GPs in parts of Cumbria, where there are even discussions on closing the purpose-built surgery in Windermere, the largest town in the national park, which would leave in excess of 5,500 locals and literally millions of tourists without any primary care cover?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the closure of an individual practice is not something the central Government take charge of. However, the noble Lord is right that there are areas of the country where it can be hard both to recruit and retain doctors in general practice and other specialities. That is why the Government have put in place a programme of £20,000 one-off payments to recruit doctors in areas where recruitment is hard. The number of placements available under that scheme is increasing this year, next year and the year after.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]]

It is clear that virtual and telephone appointments enable more consultations to the hour and are, in that sense, more efficient. However, a doctor told me recently that he hoped virtual appointments would not become the norm after the pandemic, as in his view it was essential for a doctor to have face-to-face consultation and examination where possible. Will the Government encourage physical consultations again after the pandemic has passed?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the shift to virtual consultations and, in particular, virtual triaging, has been a positive development in the NHS. However, for many patients, a face-to-face appointment may be most appropriate. So, I say to the noble Lord that we do encourage digital working; it can be more efficient, and it protects both GPs and patients from potential infection. But face-to-face appointments can be incredibly important and should take place where needed.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, like everyone in the NHS, GPs have had to work extremely hard during the pandemic. I wonder whether my noble friend could enlighten us on what support the Government are giving front-line practitioners for their mental health. I note that the Government recently—Matt Hancock is to be congratulated on this—set up the National Academy for Social Prescribing, recognising, at last, the crucial role the arts play in supporting people’s mental health, particularly those in the health service.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, for GPs, NHS England and the Royal College of General Practitioners have launched the Looking After You Too service, which is there to provide mental health services to all primary care workers in the NHS. On social prescribing, that is an incredibly welcome development. The Government’s loneliness strategy, launched in 2019, committed to every eligible patient having access to a social prescribing connector scheme by 2023, and we look forward to delivering that.

[Lord Loomba (CB) [V]]

My Lords, from my personal experience, waiting times to see a GP have always been long, and appointments limited to five or six minutes only. Now, it is even worse, with many appointments by phone, denying patients the proper medical care they urgently need. I believe the situation is mainly due to shortages of doctors and nurses. I also realise that the Government are committed to filling the vacancies as soon as possible. Could the Minister say how and when these vacancies will be filled so that GPs are able to provide a better and more comprehensive service?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that the Government are committed to increasing the number of doctors working in general practice. It is about not only increased recruitment—that is why we are increasing training places to 4,000 next year—but increased retention, which is incredibly important. A number of new retention schemes, which were included in the updated GP contract, have now been launched.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, will the Minister concede that, in spite of the much-vaunted promises by Tory election manifestos, the actual number of GPs has decreased for the first time since the 1960s. Does she not find explaining the difference between rhetoric and reality somewhat embarrassing?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that the number of GPs is down by 600 on last year. My understanding is that a number of factors have impacted this, including foundation doctors on placement in general practice being redeployed to secondary care during the Covid crisis; GPs working in NHS 111 during the Covid crisis; and the quality and completeness of data being impacted by Covid. But he is right: we need to do more. We have increased recruitment, and our emphasis is also on increasing retainment so that we can increase the number of GPs.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, data from a 2018 survey in Pulse magazine showed that during the six years between 2012 and 2018, 565 GP practices closed. What plans have the Government put in place to alleviate the intense pressure on the remaining general practices in the areas most affected, such as the north-east, given that 1.7 million people were left without a GP?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

One aspect of our response is to increase the number of GPs, but there is also an important role for other healthcare professionals working in primary care. Those numbers increased last year—both the number of nurses working in primary care and the number of other workers, such as physiotherapists and social prescribing link workers. A more diverse workforce and a better mix can free up GP time to focus on those with the highest clinical need.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

My Lords, there are complications in calculating the number of general practitioners, because a large number of them do variable numbers of sessions—some do four, five, six, seven, eight and so on. The size of the general practice workforce is often calculated in terms of whole-time equivalence, but this is unlikely to be accurate because there are GPs who are paid for five or six sessions but do many more. Is this taken into account when calculating these numbers?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The noble Lord is correct that the numbers are calculated at full-time equivalence. There may be more individual GPs working, because one trend we have seen is that with increased workload, people with families to look after, or who are either at the end or the start of their career, are choosing not to work full-time. With the retention programme, we are looking at both freeing up time and workload pressures on those GPs and providing specific support with childcare and costs to those looking to join or return to general practice.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, analysis by the Health Foundation think tank has found that people in the most deprived communities are less well served by GPs, who are struggling to cope with shortages of doctors and receive less funding per patient than those in more affluent areas, despite the fact that people living in poorer areas have greater healthcare needs. What action are the Government taking to tackle the lack of doctors and the funding disparity between poorer and wealthier communities? Is not addressing the inequalities of provision in general practice the key to tackling health inequalities, which have worsened because of the coronavirus pandemic?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

As I said to noble Lords before, one of the initiatives the Government are undertaking is providing extra funding to doctors to train in those hard-to-recruit areas, to increase provision there. The noble Baroness is right to say that equality of provision is an important part of the NHS, and it is something that we strive to deliver.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is worrying that the situation has changed so much, and that two-thirds of GP consultations now have to be done by telephone, as time and practical access to surgeries are so limited, and it is no longer possible just to walk in. In those circumstances, it is difficult to know whether a case of obesity, for example, is getting worse or improving. Seeing patients personally is much to be preferred. But when they ring the doorbell they have to be let in, they can only be spaced in a certain number of chairs, and everything has to be cleaned after each patient leaves. It really is difficult. As for the shortage of GPs, I wonder whether we might get some from Commonwealth countries—as I came, years ago, when there was such a shortage of dental practitioners. There may now be surplus doctors in some other countries, who we could ask to help us out.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The noble Baroness is correct in her references to the measures taken in GP surgeries to control infection. Those are incredibly important during a pandemic. However, telephone and video consultations can be a triaging process to allow people to have face-to-face consultations for the appropriate amount of time with the appropriate primary care worker.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who have not been able to put their questions.

Housing: Rent and Covid-19

Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Question

12:52

Asked by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the survey conducted by Shelter into the experience of renters during the COVID-19 pandemic.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. The Government have noted the results of Shelter’s attitude survey of 5,077 adults. We have introduced unprecedented measures to protect renters. Not only have we increased notice periods to six months, but we have extended financial support for workers and strengthened the welfare safety net by over £9 billion. We continue to take action to improve standards and supply, we recently introduced stricter electrical safety standards, and we are announcing £12 billion of investment in affordable housing.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, thousands of renters are shocked to find the amount of benefit they receive does not cover their rent payments. I am sure the Minister will say that the tenants concerned can apply for discretionary housing payment—but the problem is that although there was a modest increase in DHP this year, it was announced in September 2019, so it was intended to deal with a non-Covid level of demand. Can more money therefore be made available for discretionary housing payments to deal specifically with the extra demand due to Covid-19, and to help renters with growing rent debt, due to the benefits cap, to stave off the risk of eviction? If the noble Lord cannot answer that question today, will he agree to write to me with a full written answer?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I would point out that discretionary housing payments have increased by some £40 million, to £180 million. We do not have great data on rent arrears: the data from the National Residential Landlords Association indicates that about 7% are in arrears. However, I will write to the noble Lord, as he requested.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, in answer to an Urgent Question on this very subject a fortnight ago, my noble friend the Minister said, of measures to help renters:

“They are kept under constant review in the light of evidence of public health, and we are prepared to take further measures as they are needed to protect landlords and tenants alike”—[Official Report, 24/9/20; col. 1948.]


Since then the public health evidence has, sadly, deteriorated significantly, so will my noble friend now introduce the further measures that he then referred to? Might those include the recommendations of Shelter’s recent report, Renters at Risk?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I assure my noble friend that there is no evidence yet of an eviction epidemic. We have established an unprecedented package of support, and the Chancellor has announced in the other place the Government’s winter economy plan to support people through the winter, and to support jobs, including the new job support scheme. We have increased local housing allowance rates to the 30th percentile, which will remain in place at least until the end of March 2021.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]]

My Lords, 300,000 people are now reported to be behind on their rent. As the Minister will know, debt because of rent is one of the major causes, if not the major cause, of anxiety, and it is very prevalent at this time. The Government are to be commended on the steps they have already taken, but in view of the seriousness of the present situation, and rising anxiety levels, will he consider a special coronavirus relief fund for private renters?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are always receptive to creative ideas. We will continue to keep the position under review, and will consider such ideas if we need to.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation. A report by the federation and Heriot-Watt University found that within the last two years, the number of people in need of social housing has increased by 5%, supporting Shelter’s findings. We now have almost 4 million people living in inadequate and overcrowded homes and in desperate need of social housing. As we move into winter, this is going to get worse. Will the Minister look carefully at both reports and commit to building the 90,000 social homes a year we need as a matter of urgency?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have set out clearly a very significant investment of £12.2 billion for affordable homes, around 50% of which will be social housing and 50% intermediate homes to provide the housing ladder of opportunity. We have to recognise that what we have actually seen is a collapse in home ownership, from a peak of 71% down to 64%. It is that that we are trying to address, to ensure that we give people the opportunity to own their own home, as well as providing the social homes that this country needs.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this report shows a 40-year legacy of failure to build sufficient social housing? Blackpool, for example, has two-thirds of private renters on benefits but no AHP grant funding locally to build social housing. Does he accept that levelling up will remain a pipe dream if poor quality private rentals are the only option available to people on benefits?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I accept the challenge that we want to see more councils building council homes. I am delighted to point to Wandsworth, “a brighter borough”, which has announced the building of 17 three and four-bedroom properties in Roehampton. There is a growing recognition among councils that they can build again and they should: that is part of their core role.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, despite the court ruling earlier this year that made blanket bans on renters who are on benefits unlawful, such renters are still being discriminated against. Landlords and letting agents are still stating that landlords’ mortgage and insurance policies prohibit them from letting to tenants on benefits. A number of people are now on benefits due to Covid. Can the noble Lord confirm that any reference implying this prohibition on renting to people on benefits in mortgage and insurance policies and on property websites should be removed immediately? If he is unable to do that today from the Dispatch Box, will he write to me to clarify the situation?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, there is no obvious indication of discrimination against people who require housing support, housing benefit or universal credit. As noble Lords know, the increase in the housing benefit bill is substantial, but I will write to the noble Baroness on the matter.

[Lord Bird (CB) [V]]

We should congratulate Shelter on outlining that 60% of people in the rented sector are only one paycheque away from falling into arrears. That is the kind of information we need to work on. I suggest that the Minister speak to the Government. If we are to have a Cockaigne, as suggested by Boris Johnson at the party conference recently, we need to support people who will fall into evictions because of Covid-19. The only way to do that is for the Government to pay now, rather than later, when these people slip into homelessness.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I just point out that as a Minister, I am part of the Government and I will always try to respond as such. We do not see an eviction epidemic. We are fully behind the noble Lord’s mission to end homelessness, as he knows, and we will invest in that endeavour.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of the people in arrears and liable to fall into homelessness are young people working in the hospitality or entertainment industries, which are very much at risk now? Will he urge his Treasury colleagues to lift the benefit cap to support them and others like them through the winter? Does he agree that this is bound to be cheaper and more humane than the cost of more homelessness?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we recognise that this is a terribly difficult pandemic, and a number of renters have had to move back home on losing their jobs. That is the kind of mobility you see in a seismic pandemic such as this, but the Government have increased the benefit cap, which has cost £9 billion in total. We will take further measures if necessary.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]]

Noting my register of interests, I ask the Minister this: more than 1 million households are registered on council waiting lists; the number is rising, due to the Covid crisis. Meanwhile, the number of homes for social rent has plummeted. Can he explain how the housing needs of desperate families are to be met now?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, the statistics do not bear that out. We have seen a slight drop in social housing, down from 20% in 1999 to 17% in 2018, but there has been a seismic collapse in the levels of home ownership. Of course, we need social homes, but we also need those intermediate homes that enable people to get on in life.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I commend the work of Shelter. Changes to permitted development will have a profound impact, as many living in the shadow of Canary Wharf will testify. For the past 30 years, they have heard promises of job creation and social housing for local people. With 75% of the workforce coming from outside, leaving the boroughs with severe shortages of family housing, and rising numbers of expensive apartments leading to a further need for family housing, will the Minister engage with local authorities and housing associations to ensure that 1 million inbuilt permissions for housing are mandated to commence immediately, with guarantees of at least 50% social housing for families? Otherwise, the rental generation will remain the purview and gesture of the Prime Minister’s podium rhetoric.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I will not give that precise assurance; however, it is important, when we develop schemes such as that at Canary Wharf, that there is social value, that jobs are created for local people and that the benefits of redevelopment and regeneration spread out to the whole community where such schemes take place.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who has not been able to put her question.

13:04

Sitting suspended.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Announcement

13:30

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.

I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe of today’s list. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged; a Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.

The groupings are binding, and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect the voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Report

13:32

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Constitution Committee

Clause 1: Reports of the Boundary Commissions

Amendment 1

Tabled by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2)

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

One objection to automaticity was that it left a delaying power in the hands of the Government. Given that the Minister has added his name to Amendment 6, thus precluding that mischief, I will not move Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out “2031” and insert “2033”

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, I also speak to Amendment 3 in my name. Amendment 2, if agreed to, would move the next review, beyond 2023, to 2033 instead of 2031, thus making it a 10-year gap. Amendment 3 would make that a permanent arrangement.

As a former MP, I am acutely aware of the disruption caused by reviews, not just for MPs but for their constituents, councils, councillors, local organisations and many others within the constituency. Others who are going to participate in the debate will confirm and testify to that.

Some Members will recall that in Committee, in discussing amendments giving priority to communities over arithmetic and amendments on the percentage variation—which will be covered again today in the debate on Amendments 12, 13, 14 and 18—we discussed the importance of the linkage between the MP and her or his constituency. Good MPs work in their constituency, very hard: helping individuals at surgeries and in other ways; working with organisations of all kinds; and building up a rapport and an understanding to enable them to represent their constituents at Westminster. An MP is a representative, not simply a member of an electoral college to elect a Prime Minister and thereby a Government, as some of the current special advisers seem to believe.

I know well the excitement, or rather the trauma, of boundary reviews. I was first elected in 1979 and experienced my first review very quickly, in 1983, so I know what it is like. Thankfully I survived, but I have seen many good MPs have their careers ended arbitrarily as a result of a review.

We currently have fixed five-year Parliaments—I know some consideration may be given to that—but previously we had four or five-year Parliaments as normal. If that continues, a review every eight years would mean that most MPs would face a review in every second Parliament, which is not much time for them to settle in and get to know their constituency, their constituents and how to represent them effectively. Time would be taken up by MPs preparing for the next review, perhaps even for selection and reselection—all this just in the Government’s wish to get more arithmetic exactitude.

The Government argue that this makes every person’s vote equal—of equal strength and equal value—but that does not take account of other factors, like marginality. If they really wanted every vote to count, they would be moving towards proportional representation, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who is following me, and others would like, but I know the Government do not want that and are not going to move in that direction.

My main argument is to minimise disruption, to increase the accountability of MPs to their constituents and to increase their effectiveness—something that is being sidelined in our parliamentary democracy. I beg to move Amendment 2, and I wish to seek the opinion of the House by Division when we come to that point.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill sets out a system for reviewing constituency boundaries which will result in changes much more dramatic than those of any previous reviews ever put in place.

I would like you to imagine the position of a newly elected MP in a general election in 2025. They will have won a seat with new boundaries, but just four years later a new boundary revision process will begin. From 2029 they will be engaged, over a two-year period, in arguments about whether the constituency might exist again, or whether it should be redrawn in a very different form. They will not know the decision of the boundary commissioners until the end of September 2031.

Under these rules, Parliament will no longer have a say over whether the proposals are implemented. The new boundaries will therefore take effect in any general election from February 2032. There will be just four months between the Boundary Commissions’ reports being finalised and their proposals automatically taking effect in any general election. All that is certain is that the proposed constituencies will be very different from those at the previous election.

The problem with eight-yearly reviews, a fixed number of seats in each state or region and very limited flexibility from the quota of electors in each seat is that they will involve major changes to more than 300 constituencies every time. Not many more than 100 constituencies are likely to have unchanged boundaries. This is not a one-off problem but is what will happen with every boundary review in future.

The frequency of reviews involving dramatic changes to boundaries does not make sense if the link between MPs and their constituencies is to be valued. Unfortunately, little consideration was allowed in the other place for the question as to how frequently reviews should take place. Over the past 50 years, we have had 14 general elections. That is an average of one every three and a half years. Therefore, with a boundary review every eight years, and with the rules as proposed, we can expect that only one in five constituencies will exist with the same boundaries for two consecutive general elections.

Somebody winning a seat shortly after a boundary review will know that they will get the chance to fight that same seat just one more time. There will then be a 50% chance that it is reorganised in a major way, and an 80% chance of the boundaries being changed in some way. But somebody winning a seat more than four years after a boundary review will immediately face a 50% chance that the constituency boundaries will change in a major way at the very next election, and an 80% chance that the constituency boundaries will be changed. It may be that some people welcome this kind of disruption to constituencies. Internal selection battles may be a great joy for some people but constantly having to engage in them cannot be good for anyone who wants to serve the people of a constituency or to demonstrate that they could do so in future. Party HQs may welcome frequent reorganisations so that awkward MPs might find themselves forced out and without a seat, while more obliging loyalists could be rewarded with new opportunities.

One of my friends on the Cross Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was an excellent constituency MP, but he twice found that a constituency that elected him with large majorities was effectively abolished by the boundary review process. Constituents cannot be well served in a system in which constituencies are likely to exist for only two general elections.

The late and much missed Professor Ron Johnston, has been quoted by all sides many times in our debates on the issue of boundary reviews. In Grand Committee, the Minister, referred to his “respect and appreciation” for him. Professor Johnston felt that a constituency should exist for three general elections before its boundaries could be redrawn. The only way in which to make that more likely while keeping boundaries reasonably up to date is to make the reviews every 10 years, not every eight.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise for not participating in Committee, having spoken at Second Reading, but I followed the three days of debate in Committee. I saw the feed on the first day, in which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, raised his proposal for a 10-year cycle for reviews. I was surprised at his persistence in bringing back the issue on Report. Not only has he gathered comrades in arms from the opposition coalition, he has the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, as co-signatories to his proposals. However, where are the interests of parliamentary democracy served by another example of foot-dragging on boundaries? I excuse the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, because I suspect, from listening to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and Lib Dems generally, he would wish to do away with single-member constituencies altogether, in the hope of achieving something more advantageous to the Lib Dem cause of proportional representation.

13:45

Where is the radicalism in the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes? No Clydesider he on this issue. He sounds positively reactionary in what he tells us about the relationship of an MP with his constituency. He said in Grand Committee that

“the reason for having 10 years rather than eight is to give some stability for the Member of Parliament to get to know her or his constituency—to become acquainted with it and have the support of their constituents—and to be able to come to the House of Commons as a representative, not a party hack”.—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. GC 165.]

While I would not have supported my noble friend Lord Forsyth in Committee, I believe that the more frequent the review the better. Eight years is a fair balance and keeps as closely as is practical to the perfection of equal electorates at general elections.

In returning to these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, disappoints me, as do the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for whom I have a high regard. In my experience, candidates should get to know their constituencies before elections, not learn on the job as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, suggests. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, will agree with me on that. In his talk of disruption and the concept of “swings and roundabouts”, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, called it in Committee, he forgets the poor voter and the purpose of the Bill in providing fairness of representation as the registered electorate changes to provide 650 MPs. However, despite his observations, I think that changing boundaries in the pursuit of fairness is not something with which he disagrees. The difference between us is, in practice, between his proposals in the amendment, for reviews every 10 years over three elections, and the Bill clearly stating eight years and the probability of two elections.

I have always seen the noble Lord as an early bird, a personal clock on continental time, not a stop-abed, reluctant to meet the day. Quintus Fabius Maximus, the Cunctator, has nothing on him as he seeks to avoid a battle with public opinion. Perhaps he has already achieved that objective by being in this place. He might, however, reflect on how the apparent policy of his party and his amendments will be received by the other place if, as he suggests, he pursues them to a Division and, more importantly, on how that will appear to the voters who they seek to represent.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

I have little to add to what I have heard. It is important that changes to constituencies are not too frequent. A Member of Parliament gets close to the local authorities, the electors and all sorts of organisations. I have had the experience of representing a constituency for 23 years and then half of it being taken away from me to the east because the county boundaries changed. The numbers had to be made up by adding two new wards to the west. It was not easy, but we conquered the problem. One had to rebuild new associations, friendships and interests, and people wanted to know you better. It is therefore a very bad thing, in my experience as a Member of Parliament for 41 years, for constituency changes to be too frequent. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading but not in Committee, but I have been following the Bill’s progress with great interest. It is fundamental to our democracy. I want to express my concern about this grouping and to speak against Amendments 2 and 3 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.

The fundamental reason for boundary reviews is to ensure that constituencies of equal size are maintained. To do this, we need the data to be reviewed on a regular basis, balancing this with the need to avoid constant disruption. In a fast-moving world of significant changes in our demographics, which can be through housebuilding or geographical migration, including changes to people’s work patterns and locations, it seems that the Government’s proposal in the Bill to conduct boundary reviews on a cycle of eight years is fair and reasonable. If, as the amendments propose, boundary reviews are held only every 10 years, there will be an even greater risk than there is now that constituency boundaries will become out of date and unequal between the reviews.

Prior to 2011, when general reviews took place every eight to 12 years, it was a very unsatisfactory system where interim reviews would take place to consider whether particular constituencies should be updated between the general boundary reviews to take account of local government changes and shifts in population in particular areas. Those interim reviews were disruptive. They were made at the discretion of the Boundary Commission and they made it difficult for MPs to develop stable and effective constituency relationships with communities. A balance of eight years should avoid the need to hold interim reviews, which has to be a good thing.

It is right that all parliamentary constituencies should be of equal size and that everyone’s vote carries equal weight. It is a balance between regular reviews and minimal upheaval while ensuring that constituency boundaries accurately represent significant demographic shifts in a fast-moving world. Eight-year reviews strike the right balance.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendment and I want to focus on one particular point. The Minister, in replying to the debate in Committee, put great weight on the support that he alleged his proposals had received from interested parties. I shall quote him:

“Prior to the Bill’s introduction we engaged with all the parliamentary parties and with the electoral administrator representatives, and an eight-year cycle was the one that was supported.”—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. GC 171.]


I had hoped for rather more than that, so I put down a PQ. I did not get a lot more in response; I will come back to that in a moment. It said:

“Ahead of the Bill’s introduction, the Government engaged with parliamentary parties, and electoral administrator representatives, and there was general acceptance of an 8-year cycle.”


In Committee, the Minister said the eight-year cycle was “supported”, but in reply to the PQ he said it was accepted. Those are very different things. Being supportive is, “What a jolly good idea, Minister. How wise you are.” Being accepting is, “Well, Minister, if that is really what you want, I suppose that we will have to go along with it.” That comes perilously close to misleading the House.

I would be inclined to forgive the Minister for that if, when he winds up the debate, he is able to give a clear and concise summary of exactly what the consultation consisted of, who was consulted and exactly what their replies were. If he cannot do that in winding up—I understand that he might be a bit short of time—I would be grateful if he would give a commitment to write to all noble Lords involved in this debate setting out at greater length and in more detail what the consultation was. In doing so, he will make us a great deal more confident that this is not a product of ministerial whim and the justification for it thought up only after the event.

[The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)]

My Lord, I believe that it is sensible to have more frequent boundary reviews than those being proposed in the amendment. Prior to Covid, this country was enjoying very substantial employment figures and people were relocating around the country to where the jobs were to be found. However, the pandemic has changed absolutely everything. The jobs market is dreadful and getting worse, and when we eventually arrive at a new normal, I suggest that it will bear little resemblance to what we knew pre-Covid. Jobs will be extremely difficult to come by, and to find employment people will have to translocate in pursuit of work. This will inevitably change the shape and size of many constituencies and demographics in general. That is one reason that I believe it is vital that boundaries are reviewed on a more frequent basis than that being proposed in this amendment. That is why I shall support the Government.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, not least because of his own and his family’s historic links with the city of Sheffield. However, I have to disagree with him on this occasion. I shall speak briefly in favour of the amendments because I want to speak again on Amendment 12 and the substantive issue around that.

To pick up the point that was just made by the noble Earl, if we are not to have the catastrophe of a major shift in population further away from the north of England, we will have to take the opportunity of the use of social media and more imaginative and creative ways of bringing jobs to people, rather than people having to go to existing jobs; otherwise, we will have an even greater imbalance in the country, both economically and socially, than we have already.

The simple point I want to make is one that I made in Grand Committee. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I do not believe that the issue is about the Member getting to know the constituency before they are elected, if they are lucky enough to be so; it is about the constituents getting to know the elected Member. In the single-member constituency framework that we have and of which I am in favour, it is absolutely fundamental that the constituents know who is representing them, that they know where to contact them and that a constituency Member gets to know the critical areas of the community so that they become a voice for the area, whichever party they start off representing.

I want to make just one additional point in response to the noble Baroness who has spoken against these amendments. I experienced an interim boundary change because of local authority boundary reorganisations. It was nowhere near as disruptive as the major and complete rebanding of constituencies in the period that I experienced otherwise. It added a part of Hillsborough into the Brightside constituency, which has allowed me to take the title of Brightside and Hillsborough—although I spent a lot of time in Hillsborough, not least in the football ground, when we were permitted to do so.

This is all about stability and the arrangements that complement and develop the concept of the citizen knowing who represents them in our system. These amendments are a sensible way of ensuring that we do not have constant disruption. That may be good for numerical equality, which we will come to later, but it has absolutely nothing to do with democratic representation.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has just said about the emphasis on people’s interests rather than those of politicians, and I shall come back to that in a moment.

In the interests of brevity, I wish merely to reiterate our support for these two amendments which have been clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Rennard, and to emphasise our approach to the Bill, because we are just starting on this process again. We are concerned to minimise excessive, unnecessary and pointless disruption. Anyone who has had the privilege of serving as a Member of the House of Commons knows that the commitment is to people—the human geography rather than just the physical geography—and for that purpose we are concerned about the way in which this Bill has been drafted. However characterful a constituency may be in its built as well as its natural environment—I challenge anyone to compete with north Cornwall on that score—you represent views rather than vistas. That is why a better electoral system with multi-member constituencies would indeed be much more representative than the present one.

In the context of this Bill, for those reasons, we are determined to maintain a consistent relationship between people and their representatives wherever and whenever there are no overriding reasons to break it. I admit that this is a conservative approach, but it is also the people-friendly one, and I hope that that will appeal to the Minister. It is a matter of appropriate balance, as other noble Lords have said. We support the amendments.

14:00

[Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes and all noble Lords who have spoken today on these amendments, the majority making a very good case to have Boundary Commission reviews every 10 years.

Those who have been through boundary changes will know the upheaval that can happen. Former MPs have spoken today on the impact they can have. I have never been a Member of Parliament, but I speak as someone who has had to reorganise constituency boundaries. It is difficult for all concerned, including party members, party organisers and electors, some who can find that they have not moved to a new home but that they have moved into a new constituency.

A change in constituency boundaries takes some time to bed down, with new relationships having to be formed and the sitting Members sometimes having to find new constituencies to represent. In some cases, they find that they do not have a constituency, which will happen when this Bill goes through. I know that these things can happen whenever there are boundary changes, but a 10-year period means less churn and less upheaval and is better for democracy. The MPs have time to build up good relationships with the constituencies that they represent, which provides stability for all involved. Political parties play a big role in our democracy and work closely with the MP or their party’s candidate. It is a crucial role. When boundaries are altered, there can be big changes to make, not only for the Member of Parliament, but for all those who work with them to get them elected. A 10-year period would allow for much more stability.

There is support for this from most Peers who have spoken today on this amendment, as there was in Committee. I ask the Minister to take careful note of the views expressed today in favour of a 10-year review. My noble friend Lord Foulkes said that he will call a vote on this, and we will, of course, be supporting him.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to change the timings of boundary reviews so that a review would be undertaken every 10 years. Currently under the Bill, a boundary review would take place every eight years. This is a change from the current law. I think many noble Lords have forgotten what the current law is: under it, a review should take place every five years.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and many other noble Lords, in supporting this amendment, said that they wanted a lack of disruption to local communities. Many noble Lords also talked about disruption to Members of Parliament, but I am more interested in local communities. Our aim, as committed to in our manifesto, is to ensure that parliamentary constituencies are updated regularly but without the disruption to local communities and their representation that might occur with the current five-yearly reviews. I, and the Government, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on the Opposition Benches, who said at Second Reading:

“Eight years seems to me a sensible compromise, ensuring that constituency electorates are kept reasonably up to date, and in normal times would operate for at least two general elections.”—[Official Report, 27/7/20; col. 82.]


We believe that an eight-year review cycle strikes the right balance between ensuring that our constituencies are based on contemporary data and avoiding the disruption of having a review roughly every time an election occurs. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who has a lot of experience, for supporting our view on this.

While we were drafting the Bill, we shared our broad plans for the Bill’s contents with parliamentary parties and electoral administrators. We also discussed a range of technical issues with them. During those meetings, we stated that the move from a five-year to an eight-year review cycle was government policy, but that we would be interested to hear from anyone who disagreed with this idea. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that there was general acceptance that the eight-year cycle was the right approach.

Parliamentary parties also raised understandable concerns about ensuring that the data used was as up to date as possible. This was particularly notable regarding the use of local government boundary data. I am surprised that nobody has brought that up today, because it was brought up in Committee. The Boundary Commissions take all that data into account when drawing up proposals for constituencies. This was the rationale behind Clause 6, which allows the Boundary Commissions to consider a more up-to-date picture of local government boundaries and allows them to factor that into their proposals where appropriate and relevant.

When we engaged on this measure—I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that it was an engagement—representatives of the parliamentary parties and electoral administrators were supportive of it. They thought that reviews only every 10 years would further undermine the aim of having updated constituencies. It would mean that the data used would be even more out of date, and that over time constituencies would become less reflective of current local government boundaries and demographic changes. The parties also told us that they find it helpful, for campaigning purposes, for up-to-date local government wards to be used in constituencies.

With the longer review cycle of 10 years, the question of interim reviews, which has not been mentioned this afternoon, also arises. The representatives of political parties and the electoral administrators with whom we engaged were against the prospect of introducing interim reviews. Let me explain the chain of reasoning here. Prior to 2011, when general reviews took place every eight to 12 years, interim reviews also took place to consider whether certain constituencies should be updated in between general boundary reviews to take account of local government changes and shifts in population in certain areas. Were we to move to a 10-year review cycle, the rationale for interim reviews would remain strong. Our stakeholders told us clearly—and we agree—that we should not return to this approach. Interim reviews bring further disruption and confusion to constituencies, and uncertainty to sitting MPs. An eight-year cycle removes this problem. It treads the most balanced path between the need for stability and the need for contemporary data.

I will address some of the arguments made in support of the amendment when it was discussed in Grand Committee and which have been repeated this afternoon. Most of the noble Lords who are supporting this amendment—the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Blunkett, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris—argued that eight-year reviews would prevent MPs and constituents building a rapport. There is an assumption in that argument that I find problematic. I agree that it is important for representatives to know their constituents well. However, the realities of the electoral cycle surely mean that MPs must be able to build a rapport with constituents in less than five years. If 10 years is needed to establish good relations, that would seem to take for granted that one will be re-elected.

The argument was also made that a constituent might approve, or disapprove, of their MP’s behaviour, but be unable to express their opinion at the ballot box because a boundary review had now made them part of a different constituency. This is not an argument for reviews to take place every 10 years as opposed to every eight or five, or any other length of time, but an argument never to change constituencies. The Government believe that a far more unfair and frustrating situation to be in as a voter is knowing that the vote one is casting is not of equal value to those cast in a neighbouring constituency. I thank my noble friend Lady Pidding, who has a lot of knowledge of this, for her explanation of this issue.

It was argued that a 10-year cycle would enable reviews to take place at a predictable point before each election and thus ensure that the boundaries used for each poll were fully up to date. Some Lords acknowledged that their reasoning assumed that each Parliament would last for five years. However, we should test the strength of that assumption with care. Since 2010, the law has required Parliaments to last five years, notwithstanding certain exceptions, but in that time only one Parliament did last five years. Therefore, even when terms of Parliaments are fixed, a world in which boundary reviews are conducted at a particular point before a general election has proved impossible. Will it be more possible, however, when terms of Parliaments are not fixed? Neat schedules where boundary reviews and election dates align perfectly are attractive in theory, but this has not proved possible in practical terms and is unlikely to in the future.

I agree with my noble friends Lord Taylor and Lord Shrewsbury: we believe that the middle ground proposed in the Bill today is the right way forward. Eight years removes the disruption of a review happening roughly each time an election occurs, but it also ensures that boundaries remain up to date and fair by making sure that not too much time elapses between reviews. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate which has served to convince me that we were absolutely right to move this amendment and to pursue it. However, I would like to congratulate the Government Chief Whip, who has done a good job in mobilising the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and above all, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, his predecessor, to speak against this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, says he is surprised at my persistence. As a former Government Chief Whip, he is one of the people who should be least surprised by my persistence, not just on this but on other matters. He said he was surprised because I am normally a radical, and I am making what he sees as a reactionary move. Perhaps he is thinking that there is a Private Member’s Bill along the same lines in the House of Commons, supported by Peter Bone and Sir Christopher Chope. I hope he will look at that; it might convince him to rethink his opposition to my proposal.

It is interesting to note that all the former MPs who have spoken in this debate support this amendment. They have experience on the ground of how these things work, and I am very encouraged by their support. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for finding out that when the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, who dealt with this issue in Committee, said that the Government’s proposal was “supported” by all those consulted, that was totally wrong. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, confirmed, they “accepted” it, and my noble friend Lord Lipsey pointed out the difference between those two things extremely well.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for reminding me of one other important aspect of constituency representation that I had forgotten—the football teams in each Member’s constituency. I had a slight problem there, in that I had both Cumnock Juniors and Auchinleck Talbot in my constituency, and they are bitter rivals. I had to be neutral when they played each other, which was not an easy thing to do. However, I understood the respective supporters and their various interests.

I remind the Minister and the House that up to 2011, Boundary Commissions were instructed to hold reviews every 8 to 12 years. On that basis, 10 years seems to strike a sensible balance. I therefore intend to press my amendment and hope the House will support it as a sensible way forward.

14:15

Division 1

Ayes: 261

---

Labour: 122
Liberal Democrat: 81
Crossbench: 40
Independent: 13
Green Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 240

---

Conservative: 197
Crossbench: 34
Independent: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Ulster Unionist Party: 2

14:29

Division 2

Ayes: 251

---

Labour: 116
Liberal Democrat: 80
Crossbench: 39
Independent: 10
Green Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2

Noes: 214

---

Conservative: 181
Crossbench: 26
Independent: 3
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

14:42

Amendments 4 and 5 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Clause 2: Orders in Council giving effect to reports

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

6: Clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out “As soon as reasonably practicable”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments at page 2, line 26 and line 38 ensure that a draft Order in Council implementing the reports of the Boundary Commissions must be submitted to Her Majesty in Council no later than four months after they have all been laid before Parliament unless there are exceptional circumstances.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 6 in my name, which is reinforced by the names of my noble friend the Minister and the three noble Lords who supported my original amendment in Committee.

Noble Lords will recall that, as Second Reading, I drew attention to the following words in Clause 2:

“As soon as reasonably practicable”.


This refers to the requirement for Ministers to lay the draft Orders in Council giving effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission reports. Without repeating those arguments, I will say that this lack of precision could enable the Government to delay implementing those recommendations, thereby negating the objective of the Bill, which is to put this issue out of reach of political mischief.

We debated this further in Committee in relation to my amendment to require the Order to be laid within three months, in my case, and in a more exacting six weeks in a similar amendment from my noble friend Lord Cormack. The principle was supported by all those who spoke, and my noble friend the Minister made an emollient reply while reiterating the Government’s preference to leave the words as originally drafted. We had further discussions, as promised, in the interval between Committee and Report, the outcome of which are Amendments 6, 7 and 8.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for listening and then seeking and ensuring collective agreement to the amendments. They are a compromise and, like all compromises, each side ended up with slightly less that they would have liked but enough to be satisfied with. May the negotiations on the EU treaty have a similar outcome.

14:45

Amendments 6 and 7 make changes to Clause 2 and provide that

“a draft Order in Council implementing the reports of the Boundary Commissions must be submitted to Her Majesty in Council no later than four months after they have all been laid before Parliament unless there are exceptional circumstances.”

This is in addition to

“As soon as reasonably practicable”

after the reports have been laid before Parliament, so it is a sort of backstop.

My noble friend persuaded me that there should be some elasticity in my original three months, and this updated amendment provides for a four-month limit. The period of four months is deemed by the Cabinet Office to be sufficient to allow the necessary work in drafting the Order in Council bringing the recommendations of a boundary review into effect to be completed. It also provides a measure of flexibility to ensure that a meeting of the Privy Council is held during the specified period within which the Order must be submitted because, at certain times of the year, it does not meet regularly.

My noble friend also persuaded me that we needed an “exceptional circumstances” clause to deal with, for example, a global pandemic or the death or prolonged illness of the sovereign, when it would not be feasible to submit the Order. Without this clause, if those circumstances arose, it would not be possible, without further primary legislation, to lay the Order once the circumstances returned to normal.

Amendment 7 inserts new provisions into Section 4 of the 1984 Act to provide that

“If the draft of an Order in Council is not submitted … before the end of the four month period, the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay one or more statements before Parliament … specifying the exceptional circumstances.”

This regular reporting requirement would prevent any delay being quietly swept under the carpet.

Amendment 8 inserts new subsection (7A) into Section 4 to define “sitting day”, which, surprisingly, means:

“a day on which both Houses of Parliament sit; and for that purpose a day is only a day on which a House sits if the House begins to sit on that day.”

I hope I have explained the background to the amendments as well as their key details. My noble friend the Minister, whose DNA is all over the amendments, will be able to answer any detailed questions that arise during the debate. I beg to move Amendment 6.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief, taking full advantage of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, whom I wish to congratulate on bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee and, indeed, persevering with it to the extent that we now know that consensus has been achieved. In that respect, it would be only right and proper to thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for being constructive in these discussions. The noble Lord referred to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who certainly deserves a mention in dispatches as having been a very fervent supporter of the principle, albeit with a different figure in mind.

The mischief that this amendment seeks to address is the fact that, under the previous legislation, the Government had what one could reasonably describe as an unfettered discretion, which has now been substantially removed. The consequence is that the onus will rest with the Government to establish whether or not the exception that is contained can be fully supported. I venture to suggest that the Government—any Government—will find it a lot more difficult to defend exceptional circumstances that would have had reasonable practicability.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to welcome this amendment and to add my name to it. I can also be brief because of the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I strongly supported the three-month provision in Committee, and I welcome this amendment, because it keeps the Conservative Party’s hands absolutely clean and above board. I make no apologies for reminding the House, as I did in Committee, that there have been only two occasions when Boundary Commission reports were abandoned: one was the disgraceful episode involving Jim Callaghan’s Government, who scuppered the report; and the other was a rather grubby move by the Lib Dems in 2011 to scupper the Boundary Commission report then. That was done purely out of spite because they had lost the PR referendum.

Enough of going over old bones: this now means that this Conservative Government will deliver on the commitment to make sure that Boundary Commission reports are presented automatically within four months unless there are these exceptional circumstances. My noble friend Lord Young cited a couple; they do seem to be rather serious and very exceptional circumstances. I will be grateful if my noble friend the Minister has got any more examples, but they do seem to set a standard that it would be very exceptional circumstances indeed before a Boundary Commission report did not proceed. Therefore, I welcome this compromise and I commend it to the House.

[Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I certainly support this amendment; without it the Bill would have been based on a false prescription

Repeatedly during the passage of the Bill, we heard from Ministers that through it, Boundary Commission proposals can be brought forward without political interference. The dreadful word “automaticity” entered our vocabulary —or was refreshed—repeatedly. Under the system prior to this amendment, which I hope will pass, there certainly was not automaticity; there was automaticity “up to a point, Lord Copper”. An automatic car goes up through the gears without any interference from the driver. In the case of this Bill, the Boundary Commission proposals could move forward seamlessly over the first few hurdles, but at the point where the Order in Council had to be presented, that involved the driver, who, in this case, of course, is the Minister. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, deals with that problem to a considerable extent—not quite as far as far as I would have liked, but there we are.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young. I reread his Committee stage speech and it really was masterly. The Minister, in fairness, realised this and all but said, “game, set, match and tournament” when he was winding up. Of course, we still do not quite have automaticity, and the part of the amendment that maybe I should have put down an amendment to and do not feel too happy about is that the four-month requirement for the laying of the Order shall proceed

“unless there are exceptional circumstances.”

In his speech today, the noble Lord, Lord Young, was all too aware that the validity and strength of this amendment depends to a degree on what is meant precisely by “unless there are exceptional circumstances”. The Minister said that they would be things like the Covid crisis. No one would deny that that is an exceptional circumstance but of course, as far as I can remember in my political life, whenever there are exceptional circumstances of anything approaching that level, emergency legislation is immediately introduced. Among other things, as with the Covid legislation, this sets asides all sorts of aspects of normal political behaviour. It postpones local elections. You cannot get anything quite as interfering in the normal processes of democracy as postponing local elections.

I am quite certain that if exceptional circumstances of the sort the Minister is envisaging were ever to take place and emergency legislation were required, it would be easy to insert a provision stating that the four-month rule must be overruled. I really see no need to put in the Bill the phrase “unless there are exceptional circumstances”. It may have been one of the compromises that the noble Lord, Lord Young, acknowledged are necessary when parties are involved in discussions, but the Minister really does need to address this point when he winds up. Can he please list the exceptional circumstances the Government have in mind and are worried about? In each case, can he give me an example of when it would not be necessary to introduce emergency legislation? Any emergency legislation could easily deal with this issue—I do not think it is a problem, but it is addressed in the Bill—by allowing this “exceptional circumstances” exemption. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this, because I think it is a weakness in the amendment.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, not for the first time I find myself very much in sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who always contributes sage and sensible comments to debates on constitutional affairs.

I would like to begin by congratulating and thanking my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. By accident, my amendment went ahead of his in the debate in Committee, but he was the one who did all of the work and he made a most impressive speech, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said a few minutes ago; he has also been foremost in the negotiations following the debate. It would be churlish—because my noble friend Lord True was effectively replying to my amendment— not to thank him for what he said and what he has subsequently done.

I do not want to enter a discordant note, but I was tempted, as I said to my noble friend Lord Young the other day, to put down an amendment on the timing. I am very disappointed that it is four months. My noble friend Lord Young suggested “three months”, I suggested “six weeks”. I would happily have compromised, but I think four months is a shade long and I would like a brief explanation from my noble friend Lord True as to why he felt he had to go to that far.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, talked about exceptional circumstances. Of course, I accept that there are certain very sad and exceptional circumstances—one of which my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham referred to—but “exceptional” really has to be exceptional. I remain, always, suspicious of the Executive, from whichever political party they come, and I am always, first and foremost, a Parliament man. We have at least got a better outcome that we had in the original Bill. I am grateful for that, and I very much echo the words of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who said there is great virtue in compromise. Of course there is, and may this indeed be a lesson to those who are currently conducting the most important negotiations in which our country has been involved for a very long time.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, before I comment on this amendment, can I pick up on what two noble Lords have said? When I spoke in Committee, I referred to automaticity and its derivation in this particular context. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, pointed out that the trade unions had got there first. I have mentioned to her since that, while we were in Committee, I was doing a search on the word “automaticity”, as was one of my noble friends, who managed to come up with an even earlier use of it. Shall I say, he was “cycling” through the web, which may indicate who found this wonderful piece of information. It is a study of the

“Effect of adenosine on sinoatrial and ventricular automaticity of the guinea pig”.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra talked about the years 1969 and 2011. Of course, he missed out 1983. I know that he, like the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, does not have a direct interest in 1983, but it affected some of us very strikingly and was the third occasion when this occurred.

15:00

I welcome this amendment, because in effect it achieves a declaration of full time. When this legislation originated, there were no timescales in it. I pointed out in Committee that the 1986 legislation introduced the first timescale, which was not that useful because it just said when the reviews would start, which was wonderful, but it did not say when they would finish, giving no timescales whatever. In the process of legislation we have now seen, each different process has a timescale of four months.

However, like my noble friend Lord Cormack, I would like to have seen a much briefer timescale, because the amount of work involved is overdone. Here I might correct myself and apologise, because in Grand Committee I said:

“As the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, it is just 27 lines with vast quantities of pages thereafter. The argument made to me on previous occasions was”—

this is in relation to the need to prepare the orders—

“‘Well, the maps have to be prepared; we have to ensure that we have’”—[Official Report, 8/9/20; col. GC 180-81.]

got them complete. I have done some research on these orders since and, in fact, there are no maps, so I apologise for misleading the Committee. I thought you would need laptops, websites, et cetera; in fact, all you need for the orders is a photocopier, because you lift it straight from the reports of the Boundary Commissions, which give the details of the wards.

On the question of returning officers, all you need is a list of them. I can stand here now and say that there will be two constituencies in Richmond borough and therefore who the returning officer will be. Some 90% of all returning officers can be identified now. It is almost the reverse of the game “Pointless”, where in one round they give you a few letters and you have to fill in the blanks. In this process, in relation to returning officers, it is only in those constituencies which cross borough boundaries where you have to wait until the final decision. As I say, I know how many there will be in Richmond, Bristol, Manchester or wherever, give or take one or two constituencies.

There is justification for this and I hope, as my noble friend Lord True has identified, that that is the maximum necessary period. It should be possible to do it in a shorter period. As I think a number of Members know, I had discussions with him because, as well as this issue about the end of the process, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, identified on Second Reading the question of what happens if there is a general election. I tried to find the phraseology for an amendment which would be operable if all the reports had been received. Unfortunately, due to time pressures and other events, I was unable to find a satisfactory amendment, or else I would have done so, because this is another issue that has not been touched on at any point and could apply—and did actually apply in 1983, in those very circumstances.

Therefore, I regret not being able to put down an amendment. I accept and welcome this amendment, but I hope there will be recognition that the vast majority of these processes are not lengthy, complicated and unnecessary post-drafting processes. The vast majority can be undertaken at a much earlier stage.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has brought some very important, practical questions to your Lordships’ House this afternoon. I hope the Minister will be able to reply to them. The noble Lord speaks with a great deal of experience and expertise on these issues. It is significant that he has done the research to spot some potential difficulties.

In the meantime, I am full of admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. We have known each other for many years and I have a huge amount of respect for his experience of the way in which ministries, Whitehall generally and the House of Commons and House of Lords operate. He has almost unique experience. It is interesting that so many distinguished former MPs and Ministers have contributed to the development of this amendment at all stages, some of whom spoke again this afternoon. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Young, who must be one of the best experts to tell us about what happens behind the scenes, is wholly confident that the amendments he is now promoting, as he said, put these matters out of reach of political mischief. If they are totally out of reach of political mischief, we will be all be relieved; if he is confident of that, I take his word as very persuasive.

However, I take seriously the issues originally raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and then referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Cormack—quite a trio. They were asking what exactly the exceptional circumstances were that would permit any return to a more lackadaisical approach to the timing of the tabling of these proposals from the Boundary Commissions. If the Boundary Commissions are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, just said, absolutely specific and there is no room for manoeuvre for Ministers or the House of Commons, surely it should be a much smoother operation than is implied here, even in exceptional circumstances. I hope the Minister will explain in his response exactly what he has in mind.

We should pay tribute to the Minister. It is always a mark of a good Minister and a listening Government when there is a move between Committee and Report. There has been a move; the Government have accepted a change here and we should all welcome that. It is a sign of a Government who are prepared to think again, and that must be healthy.

It also indicates that this Bill is being improved in your Lordships’ House. I know there were some Conservative Members who thought it was rather inappropriate for the House of Lords to make any changes to a Bill that dealt specifically with elections to the other place. As a former Member of Parliament, I take exactly the opposite view; after all, there is a degree of self-interest at the other end of the corridor which we hope at this end we are largely able to avoid. We have a greater degree of impartiality in that respect.

As a result of two Divisions and likely support for this amendment, we now have some changes that will undoubtedly have to be considered in the other place. It is very healthy that MPs be asked to think again about these issues. As was mentioned in a previous debate, there is already substantial Conservative Back-Bench rethinking on the important issues of the 7.5% quota tolerance in preference to 5% and on the 10-year review period. I therefore hope that the fact that there is now government support for a government change to their Bill will be taken as an indication that our role in this House is to make sure that this Bill is improved before it goes back to the other place.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not need to detain the House on an amendment where everything has been said and has been said by everyone. I simply applaud the Government, as we have just heard, for seeing sense on this amendment, which answers one of the two fundamental issues which concerned us about moving from a final parliamentary sign-off towards automaticity—that is, the ability of the Executive to delay the implementation of the Boundary Commissions’ plans, despite having handed effective authority to the commissions to put those plans into law. Without this amendment, no one, neither the commissioners nor Parliament, could have forced the Government’s hand had they chosen to delay.

I retain one concern, which is that retained by the guinea pig—not the guinea pig, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who obviously gets his feeds on automaticity even faster than I can. The issue he raised about what might happen should the Government decide to call an election during that four-month period should continue to concern us.

I had assumed that “exceptional circumstances” meant that, but that in itself is quite worrying. As my noble friend Lord Grocott and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have said, we need more explanation about what exceptional circumstances are—putting aside Covid because, as my noble friend said, that would be dealt with in another way. Given that the Government are committed to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which puts the decision back into No. 10, there must remain a worry that a difficult boundary review could somehow be circumvented. The Minister needs to allay these fears which, as he has heard, are from across the House.

The issue of the time cap introduced by this amendment was a major concern to us. It was not the major one for the Constitution Committee—we will come on to that shortly in Amendment 11, about moving to automaticity—but it was certainly one of our two major concerns. The fact that the Government have accepted and even put their name to the amendment means that it would be churlish for me not to say that we support it too.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. The House will not object if I say first that I thank and, indeed, congratulate my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Whenever I hear him speak in your Lordships’ House, I realise how much I have to learn in responding to your Lordships at this Dispatch Box. He has done a service to this House and to the electoral system, along with others who have raised this point. He was also skilful enough to get into a debate about Orders in Council and aperçu on the EU negotiations, which I do not think was strictly germane—my noble friend Lord Cormack followed on that—but I also agree with his sentiments there and hope very much that they will be translated into the languages of all 27 nations of the European Union.

The Government were happy to accept this amendment. The case was clear. The Government’s intention is to put beyond reach the idea that there might be unconscionable delay in laying these orders. It is of the utmost importance to us that it should not be felt by anyone that Parliament or the Government should have the opportunity to interfere politically in that way. I was grateful to have the opportunity to discuss with my noble friend Lord Young, other Members of the House and, indeed, the noble Baroness opposite the points raised. The noble Baroness has been very gracious and I greatly appreciate the courtesy with which she withdrew the first amendment and responded here. We may not be in agreement for all of today, but I appreciate that response.

I think there is widespread agreement and welcome for this. Therefore, I do not need to detain the House at great length. One or two points were raised about a Government calling a general election. Obviously, at the moment the rules around a general election are controlled by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. So long as that obtains, we are legislating in that light. As far as the future is concerned, no doubt points have been put on the table, privately and publicly, which may be considered. There would always be a difficulty if there was suspicion in legislating on the matter. I am here to talk about future legislation, but the example of 1983 shows how difficult it would be to prevent a general election in the period before orders had been laid. That is something that people would have to wrestle with. The Government have no intention of seeking a general election. No Government should seek a general election to frustrate the presentation of these orders to a meeting of the Privy Council. The whole political world would deprecate that action and any Government that sought to do it would not be rewarded by the electorate.

15:15

Two other major points were raised. First, why is the time limit so long and why is it four months? My noble friend Lord Cormack suggested six weeks. The original amendment was three months. We believe that there has to be a prudential element in the legislation. There are two elements here. The first is the period of four months. My noble friend Lord Hayward said that things could be done much quicker: you could just photocopy something. I say, with respect, that the legislation is not prepared by photocopying other documents. Even if that were the case, we cannot legislate for the shortest possible time if we are imposing a time requirement. We have to go for a prudential time and that includes, for example, the need to accommodate the potential irregularity of Privy Council meetings, as well as the preparation time. In discussion and reflection and with the wish to place a time limit in the Bill, which the Government agree is the right thing to do this matter having been raised—it was not something that occurred to me before it was raised in Grand Committee—we believe it better to have the prudential element. A four-month period would surely accommodate anything that might arise in normal circumstances. Secondly, there should be a provision for exceptional circumstances. I will come on to this shortly.

I remind the House that there is an implied misunderstanding of how my noble friend’s amendment will operate. The primary legal obligation that remains in this amendment is to submit an order as soon as is reasonably practicable after the four reports are laid. This is certainly not an invitation from this Dispatch Box or anywhere else for anybody to be lackadaisical—to pick up a word used. The four-month period is a deadline to help ensure there is not deliberate, unreasonable delay. The Government would be in breach of a legal obligation if they submitted the order only at the end of four months when it was reasonably practicable to have done it sooner. It is important to put that point on the record. The primary expectation of this Government, all future Governments and this Parliament in passing this legislation is that all those involved should present the material as soon as is reasonably practicable and certainly not later than four months.

I believe I said something about “exceptional circumstances” at an earlier stage. In case I did not, I will say it now. If we did not have an exceptional circumstance element in the provision, were it not possible for whatever reason—and my noble friend has given one—to deliver this in the four months then it would need full-scale primary legislation to overcome the failure to meet the four-month time limit. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, invited me to give a full list of the exceptional circumstances envisaged with explanations for each one. The Government do not envisage exceptional circumstances being the norm. I point out that not all circumstances are foreseeable. The noble Lord said that it goes off like an automatic car—you start it and it moves up through the gears. My wife would rather like that her automatic car would move up through the gears at the moment. Not every contingency in life is foreseeable. Some very exceptional things, such as a war—God forbid—could arise.

I am not going to follow that invitation, not because I do not wish to help the House, or assist Parliament further; it is simply that legally I am advised that giving a whole series of examples would risk people in the future erring on the long side as well as the short one. I repeat that our expectation is that this Government and this Parliament—and, I hope future Parliaments—will ensure that they are presented as soon as is reasonably practicable and certainly within four months. The exceptional circumstance would arise only in the rarest and most undesirable cases. In those cases, the amendment provides an extra requirement that Ministers would have to come repeatedly to the Dispatch Box, in both Houses, to explain their actions in being dilatory. Were the circumstances not exceptional, and the matter concerned not grave, that would be a humiliating and devastating admission of dereliction of duty. I am sorry that I cannot go further on that, but I hope that the House will accept my assurance on this Government’s intention and my hope that future Governments would operate in the same way.

To conclude, I hope that, in backing the amendment, the Government helped to bring more certainty and confidence to your Lordships’ House, and to electors, that the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions will be implemented without political interference or unnecessary or undue delay, as soon as practicable. I hope that noble Lords will, therefore, be able to support the amendment. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, in particular my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment that he has put before the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to ask a short question for elucidation.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, this is not a question as such. I want to commend my noble friend Lord Hayward for mentioning the 1983 Boundary Commission review, which I intended to mention but clean forgot. That was implemented by the late, great Viscount Whitelaw of Penrith. He did it, even though it added large swathes of Lib Dem-held wards to his own constituency. In the by-election which followed his elevation to this place, I almost lost the seat because of that. As usual, Willie did the right thing. The Government are doing the right thing now and I commend them.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

Does the Minister wish to respond?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I need to add anything, except to say that I share my noble friend’s affectionate remembrance of Viscount Whitelaw, whose general election tour I managed in 1979. I had to learn to drink quite a lot of whisky in a short time.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I can be brief. I join the Minister in thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I suspect it is one of the more consensual debates that the House will have on the Bill. I thank noble Lords for their kind words about my role in the amendment. That approbation needs to be shared with the Minister.

Two issues arose in the debate: four months rather than three, and exceptional circumstances. It would be impossible for me to improve on the excellent explanations on both issues given by my noble friend in his reply to this debate so, without further ado, I beg to move.

Amendment 6 agreed.

Amendments 7 and 8

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

7: Clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) The draft of an Order in Council must be submitted under subsection (1)—(a) as soon as reasonably practicable after all four reports have been laid before Parliament as mentioned in that subsection, and(b) in any case, no later than the end of the four month period unless there are exceptional circumstances. (1B) “The four month period” means the period of four months beginning with the first date on which all four reports have been laid before Parliament as mentioned in subsection (1).(1C) If the draft of an Order in Council is not submitted under subsection (1) before the end of the four month period, the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay one or more statements before Parliament in accordance with subsection (1D) specifying the exceptional circumstances.(1D) A statement must be laid—(a) before the end of the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the end of the four month period, and(b) before the end of each subsequent period of 20 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the previous statement was so laid, until the draft of an Order in Council is submitted under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment at page 2, line 20.

8: Clause 2, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
“(4) After subsection (7) insert—“(7A) In this section, “sitting day” means a day on which both Houses of Parliament sit; and for that purpose a day is only a day on which a House sits if the House begins to sit on that day.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment at page 2, line 20.

Amendments 7 and 8 agreed.

Amendment 9 not moved.

Clause 3: Modifications of recommendations in reports

Amendment 10 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 11. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Any noble Lord wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 11

Moved by

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd]

11: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“The Boundary Commissions: constitution
(1) Schedule 1 to the 1986 Act (the Boundary Commissions) is amended as follows.(2) At the end of paragraph 2 insert “in accordance with paragraph 3A below”.(3) In paragraph 3(a), for “Lord Chancellor” substitute “Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales”.(4) In paragraph 3(c), for “Lord Chancellor” substitute “Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales”.(5) After paragraph 3 insert—“3A The two members of each Commission appointed by the Secretary of State shall each be appointed in accordance with the following process— (a) a selection panel shall be convened by the Secretary of State to select the members of the Commission, which shall comprise—(i) the deputy chairman of the Commission, and(ii) two persons appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons;(b) the selection panel shall determine the selection process to be applied and apply that process;(c) the selection panel shall select only one person for recommendation for each appointment as a member of the Commission;(d) the selection panel shall submit to the Secretary of State a report stating who has been selected and any other information required by the Secretary of State;(e) the Secretary of State shall on receipt of the report do one of the following—(i) accept the selection,(ii) reject the selection, or(iii) require the panel to reconsider the selection;(f) the power of the Secretary of State to require the selection panel to reconsider a selection is exercisable only on the ground that, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, there is not enough evidence that the person selected is suitable for appointment as a member of the Commission;(g) the power of the Secretary of State to reject a selection is exercisable only on the ground that, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, the person selected is not suitable for appointment as a member of the Commission;(h) the Secretary of State shall give the selection panel reasons in writing for requiring the reconsideration of, or rejecting, any selection.”(6) In paragraph 4, at end insert “, but the term for which each member (other than the chairman) is appointed shall be a non-renewable term.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the appointment of members of the Boundary Commissions is made and is seen to be made independently and without the influence or appearance of influence of the Executive, to remove the possibility of political interference in the process of setting the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 11 seeks to put in place matters essential to dealing with the important consequences of automaticity. As the decision of the Boundary Commission will become final, and there will be no parliamentary veto, it is essential that the commission is, and is seen to be, entirely independent and so is its appointment processes. Although I have taken up the kind invitation of the Minister to discuss this issue with him, and have done so very cordially on two occasions, the Government have made it clear that they consider that no change is necessary to the current position. I do not believe that this accords with constitutional principle, hence I will seek to take the opinion of the House on the amendment.

In many senses, the new role of the Boundary Commission will become very much nearer to that of a judicial tribunal: sitting in a panel of three, gathering and hearing the evidence and coming to a decision. There will be no appeal from that decision and the other two branches of the state must accept it, just as they accept decisions and judgments of judges. The amendment therefore seeks to ensure that, in a manner akin to the appointment of judges, the appointment of the boundary commissioners is wholly independent and that that independence is guaranteed during their period of office. It seeks to do so in three ways, and I will deal with each in turn.

The first of these is the appointment of the deputy chairman. Under the 1986 Act, the deputy chairman must be a High Court judge. In Scotland and in Northern Ireland, that judge is appointed by the head of the judiciary in those jurisdictions—the Lord President and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, for historic reasons, the appointment is made by the Lord Chancellor. That was all very well with the old-style Lord Chancellor in 1986 when the Act was passed. At that time, he was head of the judiciary of England and Wales. There was, therefore, nothing anomalous in him making that appointment, like he appointed all judges. However, that all changed in 2005 with the reform of the office of Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor ceased to be a judge and head of the judiciary. He became, in essence, a political Minister. All allocation of judicial responsibilities passed to the Lord Chief Justice and appointments were made independently by the Judicial Appointments Commission. For some reason—no doubt oversight—the position was not changed. Although the Lord Chancellor consults the Lord Chief Justice, the time has come when it should now be made clear that the decision is that of the Lord Chief Justice. We should bring this provision into line with constitutional principle. The appointment of a judge who chairs a tribunal which makes the final determination of a series of sensitive issues should be in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice, just as in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is no reason for England and Wales to be treated differently.

As I understand it, the objection is not grounded in constitutional principle but on the view that, as all judges of the High Court go through a rigorous selection process, they must all be qualified and therefore appointable. It is, therefore, open to a political Minister to select one of them. It could not possibly be disputed that it would be the antithesis of justice if a political Minister could select a judge to try a case, let alone one where there was a party-political consideration. In principle, the position of the Boundary Commission is no different, but there is one further consideration. There is a danger to the independence of the judiciary. A decision of the Boundary Commission is always open to attack on grounds that the chair, although a judge, had been selected by a political Minister because he had shown himself sympathetic to the Government, or had some distant connection with them. We all know how the media can find those connections. We should do all we can to avoid the risk of such an attack, because attacks are so damaging to the rule of law.

I turn to the second part of the amendment on the appointment of the other two commissioners. The Act specifies that the other two members of the Boundary Commission are to be appointed by the Secretary of State, but says nothing about the manner of appointment. As I understand it—I pay tribute to Minister’s officials for their helpful assistance on this—the other two members are appointed under a process set out in the Government’s Code on Public Appointments, promulgated under the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019.

15:30

That process, as for any other public appointment, gives the Minister extensive powers: as your Lordships will know, the Minister can appoint the panel that selects the commissioners; he must be consulted at every stage; he can reject names; he can ask for the competition to be rerun; and he can even make an appointment of his own choice, without a competition, or appoint someone whom the selection panel does not think appointable, though he has to make disclosures in respect of that. Furthermore, the code does not bar the candidacy of a person who has had significant political activity, though this must be disclosed and will be investigated by the appointment panel. If those conflicts can be managed, it will not form a bar. I respectfully ask the House to consider that such a method of appointment is no longer appropriate for the new automaticity process.

Amendment 11 seeks to put the appointment on a clear statutory basis. The selection panel must contain a deputy chairman—current practice envisages this, but it should be made statutory—and the other two people who are to form the appointment panel should be appointed independently by the Speaker of the House of Commons. The panel should determine the process and should then select one name for each post. The Minister has a role: he can ask for reconsideration and even reject the name, providing he gives reasons, of course.

The process that the amendment sets out is modelled on the process for the appointment of judges, for, as I said at the outset, the Boundary Commission will be akin to a judicial tribunal. As I understand it, the argument against this part of the amendment is that the present system is entirely adequate, but I do not think that this takes into account the new and distinct position that requires the commission’s independence to be put beyond doubt. Furthermore, it is argued that having a different process for the appointment of the two commissioners might damage confidence in the public appointments system. The answer to that can be put briefly: the fact that judges are appointed by a special process does not call into question the public appointments system. It is a process designed for an office where the officeholder makes decisions to which there is no appeal, and which the other two branches of Government must accept. This process is designed to follow that. In reality, the Boundary Commission is a tribunal that is no different to a judicial tribunal. The process for appointing judges has worked well; it has not affected confidence in the public appointments system, and there is no reason think that the proposed amendment would affect confidence in public appointments in any other way.

I turn to the third part of the amendment on the term for which the appointments are to be made. The amendment does not specify the length of the term and, in light of the proceedings earlier in this debate, I am glad that it does not. All the 1986 Act does is to provide that the two members hold their appointments under the terms and conditions determined by the Secretary of State. My amendment seeks to provide that the appointment be for a non-renewable term. There are two reasons for this, which can be explained briefly. First, as has been pointed out by Professors Robert Hazell and Alan Renwick of the Constitution Unit of University College London, a vital safeguard for independence is that the appointment is for a fixed, non-renewable term. Like judges, commissioners must have security of tenure for the whole period necessary for them to carry out their functions. They cannot be put at risk of being subjected to pressure or undue influence by the prospect of not being reappointed or by being offered reappointment. As they have pointed out, there are numerous posts that are now made on non-renewable fixed terms: the Civil Service Commission, the Commission for Public Appointments, HOLAC and many others.

Amendment 11 simply seeks to import this principle into the terms of the appointment of the two members of the Boundary Commission. The only objection seems to be that having a renewable term will make it easier to attract good candidates and then review their performance to ensure they are doing their job properly. In my view, the second reason is plainly contrary to principle, and the first is untenable, given the new cycle of the work of the Boundary Commission. Let me deal with that point: the move to an eight-year or 10-year cycle for the Boundary Commission—I do not wish to commit myself to either at this stage, but I take it now to be 10—means that the commission will have a period of intense activity for two to three years every 10 years. Thus, appointing a person to the office for a single term, probably for eight or 10 years, will better fit into the new cycle, rather than the shorter-term appointment renewable for a further term. The longer term will not discourage the appointment as any candidate will know of the cycle and the period in which there will be intense activity. When they are not active, they will have time to obtain the necessary skills and experience. Each of these three ways set out in the amendment will ensure that the Boundary Commission, in its new role, is fully independent and seen to be so. I beg to move.

[Lord Janvrin (CB)]

I support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas; I do so because the impartiality and independence of the Boundary Commission assumes greater importance if automaticity of the implementation of the commission’s findings is accepted under this Bill. I readily accept that the Government understand this, as the Minister pointed out so clearly in Committee. If that is so, it surely makes sense to consider ways to strengthen the impartiality and independence of the commission to meet these new circumstances. The three proposals put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in this amendment to achieve this are simple and straightforward and he explained them comprehensively in moving the amendment.

The appointment of the deputy chairman by the head of the judiciary, rather than a political Minister, is a reversion to the practice before 2005, when the nature of the Lord Chancellor’s role changed. It brings England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland into line. It would significantly reduce the scope for accusations of political interference, whether real or perceived, in the future.

Changing the appointments process to one more akin to judicial appointments follows the same logic. It is not a criticism of the public appointments system but a recognition that appointing members of the Boundary Commissions must be seen to be in a special and quasi-judicial category. They are crucial arbiters of the integrity of our electoral system. The introduction of non-renewable terms of appointment merely brings these appointments to the Boundary Commissions into line with other constitutional and political watchdogs and regulators.

As has been said, this is about reality and, above all, perception. We are talking about small changes aimed at strengthening the real and perceived impartiality of those who define the framework of our electoral system. We are talking about small changes, but they are changes that might increase trust in elections, politics and the way we are governed. I strongly support this amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I was unable to take part in the Second Reading or the Committee stage of the Bill, but I have read Hansard in full. The importance of the issue raised by this amendment is such that I had to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in this debate. What struck me was that the Minister’s reply in Committee was a stout defence of the status quo as regards the appointment of commissioners. It did not recognise the fundamental change to our democracy made by this Bill. The exclusion of any parliamentary procedure to approve the recommendations of the commissioners is presumably designed to prevent any suggestion of gerrymandering. The political party in power, with a sufficient majority, could control the alteration of constituency boundaries. I welcome, therefore, the change.

The fact, however, that the final shape of the boundaries is determined by the commissioners’ recommendations in their report, without any parliamentary oversight or scrutiny, means that they must be—and must be seen to be—completely impartial. I have attended Boundary Commission hearings where I have endeavoured to put forward the case most favourable to my party—and representatives of other parties present did precisely the same. The commissioners, who are not as familiar with the political geography of a constituency as are the party hacks pleading their cases before them, must consider the evidence of population changes and the submissions made to them. In so doing they are obviously acting in a judicial capacity, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has made clear.

The boundary change that affected me most personally was in 1983, when I was the candidate in Wrexham and the sitting Labour Member of Parliament, Tom Ellis, joined the SDP. Naturally I stood down in his favour at the next election, and as it approached I thought I was out of the contest. However, the boundary commissioners stepped in and created a new constituency called Clwyd, South-West. Since Tom was born and bred in Rhosllanerchrugog, part of the new constituency, he moved there, and I, born and bred in Wrexham, fought Wrexham. Needless to say, we both lost. In Tom’s constituency, the previous Labour vote was split: 13,000 went to the SDP and Labour’s candidate, Denis Carter—the much-respected Chief Whip in the Lords in 1997—came third, with 11,000. The Tories won with 14,000. A later Conservative candidate for that constituency was an unlikely old Etonian by the name of Boris Johnson. He lost.

I hope that I may be forgiven for this anecdote: I mention it to illustrate how crucial the decisions of the Boundary Commission can be in the lives and careers of individuals and the life of political parties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has put forward a proposal that ensures the impartiality of the Boundary Commissions. In Committee, the Minister did not explain why there should be a distinction between England and Wales on the one hand, and Scotland and Northern Ireland on the other, in making appointments. Why should a political figure with his own constituency to nurse, the Lord Chancellor, appoint the commissioners in England and Wales? The only reason given by the Minister was that it has always been so. However, he knows that the nature of the office has fundamentally changed, and by this Bill so too is the role of the commissioners: they have the final say. That is a clear and obvious distinction, and is very different from the normal run of public appointments.

Secondly, the amendment calls for an independent panel to consider the applications and to put forward to the Secretary of State not a choice but a single name, which may be rejected, but only on the single ground that the candidate is unsuitable. Furthermore, if the candidate is rejected, the Secretary of State must give his reasons, and such reasons could, if necessary, be scrutinised by way of judicial review, which would test the legality and rationality of the decision. That is another safeguard against political bias.

Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, proposes that the appointment should be for a single non-renewable term. That is entirely appropriate, given that the members of the panel have to make a quasi-judicial decision. That is why we give tenure, as other noble Lords have said, to our judges. The decision must be seen to be uninfluenced by the fear that it will upset the political interests of the ruling party, or by the hope of re-appointment. I wholly support this amendment.

15:45

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, first I comment on the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to “party hacks”. I shall disregard that description, given that I spent so many hours, days and weeks at so many inquiries, initially, and then hearings, and I take his comment in the spirit in which I hope it was intended.

This amendment is really divided, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, identified, into three sections—and it is important that we treat them as such. First, there is the historical accident, as I think it probably was, in 2005, when the circumstances changed. The amendment attempts to bring back the position in England and Wales to where it is in Scotland and Northern Ireland, of total impartiality.

The noble and learned Lord touched on the point that it has to be seen to be independent. Today I am wearing the rugby tie of the House of Commons and House of Lords. Many noble Lords will know that I am a fervent rugby supporter and participant; in many ways it is probably more important to me than my membership of this place. The near-neighbour of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Nigel Owens, is not allowed to referee at the Millennium Stadium except at a club match, because he might be accused of bias, if Wales were playing another country. Nobody believes that Nigel Owens would be biased, but there is that risk. Equally, Wayne Barnes, who was voted last year’s Referee of the Year, was not allowed to referee the World Cup Final, for exactly the same reason: England was in the final.

This amendment addresses an exactly parallel situation. Two years ago I went to Zimbabwe to monitor the elections. We all know that elections, if they are fixed, are fixed not on voting day but by the processes beforehand. Sad though I am, I looked at the size of the constituencies in Zimbabwe. Funnily enough, they had not been reformed for years. The most anti-Government constituencies were in Harare and Bulawayo, and they were the largest constituencies. If we Brits had said to the Zimbabweans, “You should deal with the question of boundary redistribution”, the automatic response from the Zimbabwean Government—what I would have said as a member of that Government—would have been, “Well, you have a political Minister making the appointments to your own commission”. That is why it is important that we bring the position back into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, on the second part of his amendment. I have indicated that to him. He refers to appointments by the Speaker. I discussed this with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and he said that I was over-reacting to the previous Speaker. Lindsay Hoyle has made untold improvements in that position, and we are all very pleased that he has taken us back to a traditional Speakership. Long may he continue in those efforts. I would not, however, want to put appointments in the hands of the Speaker, because of what I have seen could happen in recent years.

The third part of the amendment deals with one-off appointments. I had a view for several years—this was touched on in Grand Committee—that when you appoint somebody to a Boundary Commission they sit there for years doing virtually nothing, and then they are under extreme pressure for a period of time. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their local government boundary reviews and parliamentary boundary reviews handled by one body. Surely it would be better to do the same in England and Wales, so that these organisations would not lose the expertise acquired in handling one set of boundary reviews—it would be cumulative, and they would take it to the next review.

I have made three different comments in relation to the three different parts of the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. They tackle the problem in very different ways, but I would have hoped that the Government could have accepted, in particular, the impartiality in the first part of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has withdrawn from the debate on this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and I encourage him to press his amendment to a vote. I do not wish to repeat the observations I made in Committee in support of the noble and learned Lord, save to say that, first, as he has outlined, the office of Lord Chancellor is much more political now that it is held in the Commons. Instead of a quasi-judicial figure who sat as a judge in the Supreme Court and usually had no further political aspirations, we now have a highly political and mobile politician as Lord Chancellor in the Commons; these are not personal remarks.

As one who campaigned for the Ministry of Justice to be headed by a Commons Minister, and welcomed that, because it is a spending department, I have no complaint. But a political Minister should not have his hands on the machinery of elections—or, indeed, anywhere near it. The office dealing with elections should be manifestly independent.

There is one point that I wish to repeat: it is a parallel and wider argument. I noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, a few moments ago, and in Committee I gave my experience as Secretary of State for Wales in appointing the chairman of the Welsh Local Government Boundary Commission. I certainly was a political Minister, and headed my party’s campaign in Wales for six years in my tenure as Secretary of State.

Local government boundaries are one of the building bricks of parliamentary constituency boundaries. On the previous amendment, the Minister confirmed that. I once lost the eastern part of my constituency because of a new county council boundary, and I had to be compensated by the addition of a number of wards from the same county council area to the rest of my constituency. My submission, therefore, is that not only should a judicial figure appoint the Boundary Commission, but the Government should also consider doing likewise for the Local Government Boundary Commission.

Since the power of appointment might already have gone over to the Government of Wales, it would too late to legislate for Wales. But the Government could certainly legislate for England. Indeed, I believe that they should do so. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s views. Local government boundaries are inextricably linked to parliamentary boundaries, and decisions should be politically distanced on both of them.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, when the Constitution Committee considered the Bill, we took the view that the removal of Parliament’s power to block Boundary Commission recommendations was constitutionally appropriate and therefore welcome. But we warned that automatic implementation of Boundary Commission recommendations would protect against undue political influence only if the commission itself is genuinely independent. This makes the selection and appointment of impartial boundary commissioners, independent of political influence, all the more important.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has, at this stage of the Bill, moved an amendment that incorporates both his own original and entirely appropriate insistence that the Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor, should make the appointments, and some of the other suggestions that the Constitution Committee referred to, which have been mentioned, in particular, by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. The Minister should listen carefully to the noble Lord, who knows what he is talking about when it comes to boundary hearings. His insistence that we need to safeguard independence is entirely justified, and I hope that his disagreement with other aspects of the amendment will not deter him from continuing to support the efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to achieve the kind of independence that the noble Lord has recognised is important.

No assurances the Minister can give could possibly satisfy us that we have guarded against the danger that lurks here. That is because we are talking about any future Government, of whatever political party, who have a majority in the House of Commons, and thus the prospect of using that majority to disrupt the electoral process, or pervert it to their advantage, in ways that will always be defended on the most respectable grounds, beneath which, however, will lie political motives —motives of party advantage and protection.

What is extremely likely to happen is that, at some time in the future, a Government, recognising that they can no longer block Boundary Commission recommendations or delay them until after the next election, will say, “We’d better make sure we don’t get unwelcome recommendations that are disadvantageous to us, and which we might think are wrong in principle. We must stop that from happening by appointing to the Boundary Commission people who have got the political message—people who understand the significance of ensuring that our views remain predominant in any future Parliament.” These things happen; they are part of the reality of political life, and constitutional provisions are there to protect us from their malign influence.

Along with that, of course, goes perceived impartiality, to which the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, referred. We are in an era when the principle of getting one’s revenge in first seems to apply in the United States. President Trump says, “If I win the election, it’s fine, but if I lose, it’s because the election has been rigged.” So he has already started his attack on the postal ballot provisions in American election procedure. That is an illustration of the fact that the impartiality of the electoral process is easily traduced or complained about, and if there are aspects of it that, on sound authority, can be shown to be at least weak in protecting impartiality, they will be criticised and exploited, and will be used as arguments to question the validity of the democratic process, at least in some individual seats, if not in the election as a whole.

This is an important matter, and I am disappointed, because I thought the Minister had realised that something could be done about it. There is still time for a Third Reading amendment that would at least pick out some of the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. To fail to act on that is to compromise an otherwise sensible and constitutionally appropriate change, by leaving this matter open to political pressures of a kind that cast doubt on the validity of elections.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has argued, the amendment reflects a constitutional principle. In an effective democracy, in which the power of the Executive is limited both by the rule of law and by the scrutiny of Parliament, regulatory authorities independent of undue executive influence play a vital role. Separation of powers between legislature, courts and Executive is central to constitutional democracy —and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, they must be seen to be separate.

We are all painfully aware of the baleful impact of gerrymandering in American politics. The institution of independent Boundary Commissions is there to ensure that political representation in the United Kingdom does not follow any distance down that path. The change in the position of the Lord Chancellor that took place in 2005 makes it entirely appropriate, therefore, that the Lord Chief Justice should now inherit that role in England.

Our current Government have recently demonstrated worrying tendencies towards authoritarian populism. Their attacks on the Supreme Court and on judicial review have uncomfortable echoes of the approaches of the Polish and Hungarian Governments. The Electoral Commission is now under sustained attack, including from a co-chairman of the Conservative Party, for attempting to enforce the rules on campaign spending and political advertising. Calls from some Conservatives for its abolition suggest that they reject regulation of electoral campaigning as such.

16:00

In addition, we have seen some recent calls in the Conservative press to throw over the idea that regulatory bodies should be independent of government. The argument is made that future appointments should come from people sympathetic to the Government’s approach, as against the “liberal elite”, who are thought to dominate the BBC, Ofcom and many other regulatory bodies.

I have been sorry on several occasions to hear the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, using the language of right-wing populism to claim that this Government represent “the people” against the elite. His political life has been rooted in Richmond—a place that contains, as he will know well, an unusually high proportion of the liberal elite. I hope that he does not call them “enemies of the people” or he must face difficulties with many of his neighbours.

This amendment is therefore not only valuable in its own right but a precedent in maintaining the autonomy of regulatory bodies, free from executive influence and control. For both those reasons, I hope that the House will give it its full support.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, our Constitution Committee accepted the move from parliamentary sign- off to automaticity, but it stressed that this change would

“only protect against undue political influence”

if the Boundary Commissions were “genuinely independent”. As it said:

“This makes the selection and appointment of impartial Boundary Commissioners, independent of political influence, all the more important.”


As we have heard, it is hard to see how an appointment by an elected politician—a member of the Cabinet—can look independent, especially, I am sad to say, when this Government seek to appoint their own to run the BBC, Ofcom, NHS Test and Trace or other major bodies. Sadly, because we are all here now, we have not been able to watch Peter Riddell appear before the relevant committee in the House of Commons this afternoon, but I gather that he has interesting things to say about the expansion of appointments beyond the normal lines of restriction. As people have said, what looks bad is bad, even if it is not actually the case. However, as a good Welsh girl, I think that we should always have the Welsh to judge our rugby matches, as we would then win every single match.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon said, when the present system was set up, the appointments were overseen by the Lord Chancellor, who at that stage was a Member of your Lordships’ House and the head of the judiciary. The impartiality was guaranteed and outwith the purview of an elected politician.

Given that the recommendations of a boundary commission could affect even the seats of the Secretary of State’s own party, then no matter how much, like Brutus, they were an “honourable man”, or even an honourable woman, it is really hard to see how the appearance of disinterest could be demonstrated. As the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, said, it is perceived impartiality, and that is vital. The solution in this amendment is surely right, in that it would demonstrate that, as the commissions now effectively make law, with no parliamentary role, their decisions were patently free from any political taint. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, now that their decisions cannot be appealed, they effectively make law with the same force as any tribunal.

The second proposal—for non-renewable terms—is equally important to ensure that there is no temptation to curry favour with the reappointing Minister, nor, again, even an appearance of that. Our Constitution Committee, without endorsing the proposal, noted that the Commons committee had discussed ideas to strengthen independence, such as by single, non-renewable terms. However, even more important than any one thing, our Constitution Committee urged us to consider

“what safeguards are required to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Boundary Commissions and their recommendations.”

Sadly—and, I think, inexplicably—the Government have refused to produce any change in response to that call. Fortunately, however, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has done so, and we are happy to support that.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there is a short period in the life of a Minister between being thanked by your Lordships for a response and disappointing your Lordships in a response, so I have enjoyed the last 10 minutes or so.

I have also enjoyed the last 40 minutes of this debate, which of course touches on extremely important points. The issue between us is whether the current system is capable of delivering people who are of high calibre, impartial, able and suitable to perform this key public responsibility. The simple contention of the Government is that the present system is suitable for purpose. I do not accept the animadversions of those who say that our public appointments system is in any way corrupt, or indeed corruptible. Also, I have never said anything about this Government other than that they are secured on a strong mandate from the people. That is perfectly legitimate to point out, although it is not relevant to the arguments before us. Those arguments, put so ably and charmingly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, are about not the nature of the mandate but the nature in which any Government carry out, and are enabled to carry out, their mandate.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, not only for raising these issues and tabling his amendment but for the meticulous research and work that he has undertaken, which he presented in Grand Committee. I also thank him for the opportunity to discuss, more than once, various ways in which one might address the conundrums that he has put forward. However, my strong contention is that the statutory approach that he suggests is not one that the Government can accept. I must politely resist it and reiterate the appropriateness and robustness of our existing appointments system.

The Government accept the importance of these posts but they argue that the processes are thorough, independent and fair, and that there is not room for inappropriate influence. The Government believe that the processes that we currently have in place for the recruitment of boundary commissioners are more than adequate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, says that he does not think that they are sufficient. Therefore, I must remind your Lordships of some of the systems and safeguards that apply.

Appointments to the Boundary Commissions are public appointments. The commissions are listed in the Public Appointments Order in Council, which provides for a governance code on public appointments and for the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments to regulate the process. The detailed governance code and the commissioner’s oversight ensure that appointments to the Boundary Commissions, and indeed to many hundreds of other bodies carrying out vital public work, are made openly and fairly on merit.

In addition to requirements in the governance code, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has acknowledged, the legislation requires the deputy chair of each Boundary Commission to be a High Court judge. To have achieved such a senior judicial position, the deputy chair will therefore have undergone an intensive recruitment and vetting procedure: their suitability to provide impartial leadership of the highest calibre will have been tested in many walks of life. All deputy chairs are drawn from this pool.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, seeks to provide that the Lord Chief Justice is responsible for these appointments in England and Wales to safeguard, as he puts it, the independence of the deputy chair role. The Government do not consider this to be necessary, as the persons to be appointed are High Court judges, I repeat, and the Lord Chief Justice is consulted over these appointments. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that what people say looks bad is not necessarily bad. I believe that the system has delivered high-calibre appointees.

The second part of the amendment looks at the selection panel. The governance code has equally robust safeguards to ensure the political impartiality of members appointed to the Boundary Commissions. Members who support the deputy chair are appointed by Ministers, yes, having been assessed by an advisory assessment panel. It is the job of the panel to assess which candidates are appointable, so that Ministers may make an informed and appropriate decision. I am advised that it has never happened that a Minister has appointed someone not found appointable by an advisory assessment panel. In accordance with the governance code, the panel will include a senior departmental official, an independent member and a board-level representative of the body concerned. In the case of the Boundary Commission, that would, in practice, be the deputy chair—I repeat again, a High Court judge.

At the application stage, all candidates are asked to declare political activity of various kinds over the previous five years—having made significant donations and so on. Such activity will be taken into account in the panel’s deliberations and, in the case of these particular appointments, such activity would likely be seen as a conflict of interest. We cannot prejudge the work of future advisory assessment panels, but it seems likely that recent, significant political activity would present a degree of conflict that would be incompatible with their finding a candidate appointable.

The Government’s contention is that the public appointments system is fit for purpose. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, argued that this was insufficient, but I put it to noble Lords that, to date, this system has secured dedicated and expert members for the Boundary Commissions over decades, and the Government believe it should remain in place. To create a bespoke system, in primary legislation, for Boundary Commission appointments, as the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, sets out to do, could cast doubt, although he said it would not, on an independently regulated system that has ensured, and does ensure, that talented individuals with the right skills and experience are appointed to many hundreds of bodies across government carrying out vital public work. Are we to doubt those people appointed in this way today? Are we to doubt those recently appointed under this system to be Boundary Commissioners for Wales?

The noble and learned Lord’s amendment also proposes that there should be a single, non-renewable term of office for deputy chairs and members of the Boundary Commissions as a way of avoiding any potential, as he puts it, for an appointee’s actions to be influenced by a desire for reappointment. We do not think it advisable to make this change, and there are specific difficulties. We consider that if an individual is to serve one term only—a single, non-renewable term—it would need to be, my brief says, for eight years to ensure that they cover a boundary review, since, in future, reviews will be held every eight years. I seem to recall that, a few minutes ago, your Lordships voted for a review every 10 years. That would mean a single, non-renewable term of 10 years to ensure that a member took part in a boundary review. We are not aware of a board appointment of such length, and it is likely that such a stretch of time would be off-putting to at least some worthy candidates. Our contention is that appointments are currently based on a robust system. The system would prevent partial candidates being appointed in the first place—or, indeed, reappointed. We do not consider there to be a risk of appointing candidates who would be partisan.

16:15

In conclusion, I pay tribute again to the experience and advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and I say to him that we have reflected on a number of the points he has made in conversations. His advice has been of great benefit to the House today during this debate. It has been helpful to take time to discuss these issues in further detail with him, and he has had the opportunity to discuss them with my officials. While the Government will resist this amendment if he presses it today, I am grateful for the constructive and courteous manner in which he has approached our discussions. I do not demur from the significance of the issues he has raised. Notwithstanding that disappointing conclusion, in many ways, I hope I have been able to give some assurance along the way to your Lordships that the system we have in place is strong and appropriate and deserves to stay in place. I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I have received a request to ask a short question for elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I have a very short question for my noble friend, to whom I have listened with great care and considerable sympathy. What can possibly be lost by putting the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom on a similar footing?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the matter before the House is whether the system for England and Wales is sufficient and effective. The contention I put to your Lordships’ House is that it is sufficient and effective. My noble friend will know in any case that the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland have long demanded different approaches.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this interesting debate and, in particular, I again thank the Minister for the courtesy he has shown me and for the time that his officials have given to looking at this matter. It seems to me, however, that four points emerge.

First, as the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, put is so powerfully, we are concerned to ensure that not only is the commission impartial but that it is perceived and seen to be impartial. With the change brought about by automaticity, its role has changed so fundamentally that fundamental changes are needed to ensure that there is perceived impartiality.

Secondly, as to the position of the Lord Chief Justice, it is very difficult to see any argument in principle—the Minister has advanced none—for why it is not brought into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland or, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, put it, the position is restored to the appointment of the person by the head of the judiciary. It is important to appreciate the kind of world in which we now live. Certainly, my own experience is that people will dig to find connections, however spurious they may be. Some may remember the connections that were dug up in relation to a decision on which I sat in 2017. No judge should be put in a position where his or her appointment is called into question on the basis that they may have some connection that has made them favourable to the political Minister, particularly a Minister whose own constituency might well be affected by the Boundary Commission review.

Thirdly, it seems to me that this must be put in statutory form. I have made no criticism of the current appointment process in relation to how the commission currently works, but it has fundamentally changed. No assurances—as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, pointed out—can work because assurances do not bind future Governments and this is in a code not made under statute, merely by an Order in Council.

Fourthly, as to the term, there simply is no reason why the tenure cannot move to being akin to other important constitutional watchdog posts. Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, raised the interesting issue of bringing together the Local Government Boundary Commission in England and Wales and the parliamentary Boundary Commission. When looking at this matter, there is much that can be said in favour of such a move. However, that should in no way affect the basic constitutional principle that the appointment should be for a fixed, non-renewable term so that, in a case, the decisions that they make are not subject to a review by Parliament, or by anyone else, and must be accepted.

In the light of the Government’s position, I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

16:21

Division 3

Ayes: 319

---

Labour: 134
Crossbench: 82
Liberal Democrat: 81
Independent: 16
Green Party: 2
Conservative: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 224

---

Conservative: 208
Crossbench: 6
Independent: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

16:34

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 12. I have to inform your Lordships that we have had three people scratch from this group, the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 12

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

12: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Electorate per constituency
In rule 2(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (electorate per constituency), for “95%” substitute “92.5%”.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, technically I rise to move Amendment 12, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lennie and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, but I must say that I will withdraw it at the end of this group. However, I will move, and shall now speak to, Amendment 13, in the name of my noble friends Lord Lennie and Lord Grocott. It is on that amendment that we will seek to divide the House.

Everything that we heard in Committee made it clear that the change in the 2011 Act—setting such a very low tolerance level within which the boundary commissioners could do their work—will mean that communities, ward boundaries, rivers, lakes, mountains and motorways will have to be crossed to engineer exactly the right mathematical numbers. Those final boundary moves—sometimes mere tweaks—to reach the required numbers make even less sense when set against the number of people not even on the electoral roll.

It is estimated that some 20% of eligible voters are not registered, which is, on average, about 10,000 per constituency; the Government are obsessed with the last 3,000 or 4,000. I remind the Minister that this is a smaller number than when there were to be 600 constituencies under the 2011 Act. The average number per constituency was therefore larger, so the 5% tolerance then gave a larger number of electors for the margin in which the Boundary Commissions work, but the very welcome return to 650 Members reduces the average number per constituency and therefore reduces the 5% either way within which the Boundary Commissions can do their work. Therefore, the last 3,000 or 4,000 the Government are so wedded to is actually very small compared with the about 10,000 per constituency who are not even on the electoral roll. Indeed, perhaps if the Government could spend as much energy on getting those 10,000 on to the register, any talk of democratic equivalence and fair votes would have a little more resonance.

The resulting splitting of communities that 5% requires also flies in the face of the reality—as we heard in the debate on today’s first group of amendments—that MPs represent areas, not just individuals. Of course, areas do not vote, but it means that MPs can best represent those individuals if they understand and have a good relationship with the organisations within those constituencies. Therefore, breaking through, for example, a school’s catchment area—sometimes for small numbers to get the percentage right—means that issues of education could pull in more than just the MP in whose seat the school is located, because the narrowness of the margin does not allow for the catchment area to be included in that seat. That will sometimes happen at the borders of constituencies, but to make it happen for a mathematical formula seems particularly unhelpful.

It can also be argued that it is not good for accountability as it does not help an MP represent the totality of an area. Communities have natural boundaries and sometimes they will have to be cut through, as I say, but we should minimise that by giving the Boundary Commissions a bit more space to allow them to respond to local circumstances.

The very slight change to an extra 2.5% either way would give the commissions an extra bit of leeway to respond to travel patterns, geographical community or the needs of an area without having the knock-on or ripple effects on neighbouring seats so that again, and sometimes for no good reason, a neighbouring community is impacted just because the numbers do not quite fit in the first seat.

This will be of particular help in rural areas or, I have to say again, communities in Wales where the mountains and valleys impose geographical constraints which perhaps are not particularly well understood in SW1, or indeed some other conurbations. Amendment 13 would make the margin 5,500 rather than 3,500 and provide some helpful flexibility—if it is needed; it does not have to be used—so that those who are holding the pencil can draw boundaries that really do represent communities and which allow people to have a community-based relationship with their Member of Parliament. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, our own amendment in this group is Amendment 14 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rennard, but I will refer also to others in this group which offer slightly different solutions to the fundamental problem with this Bill that all the signatories agree is so apparent. As Members of your Lordships’ House will have observed, we have modified our suggested solution in the spirit of compromise appropriate to Report. We had previously recommended a basic quota variance of 8%, but we took careful note of the developing consensus in Grand Committee, and we now endorse 7.5% as providing the essential and reasonable flexibility that so many Members are seeking and to which the noble Baroness has just referred.

From Second Reading right through our discussions, a clear majority of contributors have expressed concern about the very narrow 5% tolerance currently in the Bill. As has already been indicated, that concern is now echoed across the House of Commons. We must all hope that the Government are also determined to reach a sensible consensus by compromising on this figure. They have nothing to lose by doing so. As the forensic academic analysis by the late Professor Johnston and his colleagues has demonstrated so conclusively, the perceived electoral imbalance between Conservative and Labour constituencies would not be especially adversely affected by this simple and flexible adjustment. What would be changed would be the widespread disruption of so many constituency boundaries. Those newly elected Conservative MPs, especially from seats hitherto not held by the party in the north and the Midlands, may now recognise the attraction of a more measured approach in this forthcoming review. They may also be especially apprehensive about potential “blue on blue” contests. This was the core of the evidence presented to the Commons Bill Committee.

We take very seriously the point just made by the noble Baroness about the number of people who are currently eligible to be on the register but who are not there. We believe that in the months of the process of the review, this may be improved; in which case, of course, there might be quite considerable increases in particular constituencies. It is also true that if the Government eventually pursue their intention of increasing the franchise to those who have moved abroad, that too could mean a considerable difference during the actual process of the review. If, for example, anyone decides to move permanently from the London area to the Ancona area in the east of Italy and they wanted to retain their voting rights after 15 years, that could make a major difference to one of the boroughs in London. That may be true of other areas and for other individuals as well.

Meanwhile there is common ground across your Lordships’ House that the insistence on the 5% variance straitjacket, imposed on the four Boundary Commissions, will result in more changes with 650 constituencies than were proposed with the previously proposed 600 constituencies; then more regular changes for more constituencies at more reviews; and there would be more consequent knock-on changes even to adjoining constituencies which are themselves within the limits. Incumbents who believed themselves to be safe would suddenly find that they are far from it. There would also be more disruption of historic, geographically and socially cohesive communities. Finally, there would be more disconnection between MPs, councillors and the public at more regular intervals than is either necessary or desirable.

16:45

I know from my personal involvement in the coalition discussions that these reasons were basically those that motivated the then Conservative Leader of our House to recommend to the Prime Minister that the variance should go up to 10%. We can, perhaps, take it that there is a strong argument for more flexibility. The question in this debate is therefore how we should adjust this figure. Our amendment recommends a normal 7.5% variance in the quota, but permits each of the Boundary Commissions to explore the validity of 10% where exceptional circumstances demand it in each of the nations of the UK. This might include avoiding crossing the major administrative boundaries of English counties and unitary authorities, for example, or greater problems of rurality and limited transport links, or other special factors. The reference to Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act in our amendment is very specific and gives clear guidance to each of the Boundary Commissions.

Of course, constituencies within the four nations vary enormously. These factors may not be material in seeking to serve constituents in inner cities. However, as I mentioned in Grand Committee, in my previous North Cornwall constituency before the boundaries were redrawn, to drive from an advice surgery at one end to the next one at the other end could take 90 minutes in winter but up to 150 minutes at the height of the summer holiday season.

As has been emphasised by all participants at all stages of the Bill, our prime concern should be for the effect on individual residents, groups and communities in a distinct area rather than on their political representatives or their local parties. It is for that reason that we prefer our formulation to that in Amendments 12 and 13 on the one hand, or in Amendment18 on the other. The former pair seem to us to be a real improvement, but not to fully recognise the special local circumstances to which I have referred. Some scattered rural areas, not least in mid and north Wales, would certainly benefit from more variation than 7.5%. The latter amendment provides so much variation, but in just one part of the UK, that again it fails to accept the significance of the smaller number of potential constituencies with unusual requirements while at the same time loading extra electorates on to others.

The common cause we all recognise in this group of amendments is that the unacceptable level and regularity of disruption, implicit in the current 5% straitjacket, must be avoided. Here I must note my personal experience: the drastic change between my original Bodmin constituency and the subsequent North Cornwall constituency was very confusing for residents and for all those who were involved in trying to represent their interests. Indeed, I would say that that change was much more significant in trying to get good service to the electorate than the fact that by the time I retired, it had gone up to 87,000.

There has already been a lot of compromise on Report, and I accept that. The rest of us must now hope that the Minister will accept the strength of the case for greater flexibility that so many noble Lords are advancing, and accept that that, too, would reach a good consensus for us all.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

[Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to my noble friend’s amendment and I agree with every word she said. I do not have a great deal to add. I also agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said. That emphasises that we are not talking about an issue of principle in any of the amendments in the group but one of degree. It is worth reminding ourselves that there is widespread agreement across the House on most of contents of the Bill. That has been recognised even on a day like today when there have inevitably been Divisions, as there always will be. We are all agreed in our opposition to huge variations in the size of constituencies and that we should aim for equality—not precise arithmetic equality but much greater equality.

As regards my background in fighting elections, if anyone is qualified to speak on the issue of huge variations in constituency size, I can probably, without too much vanity, claim that qualification. At one stage, I represented a seat with an electorate of 57,000 and at another represented a seat with an electorate of 100,000. I therefore bow to no one in my belief that there should be far greater equality in constituency size, and that is agreed across the House.

We also all agree across the House—I include the Government in this—that there is much more to it than the simple question of arithmetic when determining constituency boundaries. We know all the guidance given to the Boundary Commission but in the Bill the Government acknowledge this issue by exempting certain constituencies from the general framework in which boundaries must be drawn. There are five such constituencies, whose inclusion I support but not for the flimsy reason that the Government claim—that they are all in one category. That is true to the extent that they are all islands or groups of islands but there also is a great deal of difference between them. No obvious similarities spring to mind between Anglesey and the Shetlands, or between the Isle of Wight and the Western Isles. Many more geographic issues need to be taken into account than the category of being islands, which is the only one that the Government seem to acknowledge, with all the frailties of that argument.

I agree with my noble friend’s amendment, which seeks greater flexibility and, in particular, has the important characteristic regarding Wales mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and my noble friend Lady Hayter. I do not hesitate to repeat what I said in Committee. I was shocked at the impact of the boundary review proposals that we are considering in the Bill on representation in Wales. The House should walk on the other side on that issue with great care.

In conclusion, there is no great issue of principle that divides the Government from those of us who feel that there should be greater flexibility. All that we are asking is that they should change the rules in the Bill to allow a little more flexibility for the Boundary Commission, and Minister should offer more flexibility when he responds.

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I very much agree with previous speakers on this group of amendments and support Amendment 18, to which I have added my name and, in the absence of my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, would be happy to move it, were that to be appropriate, if the Government were unwilling to move in that direction or to adopt an amendment moving in that direction.

Amendment 18 might be seen by some colleagues as being the more extreme option within this group, which seeks greater tolerance around the mean number of electors per constituency. That amendment applies only to Wales, and I appreciate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Grocott. All referred to the challenging situation in rural Wales. It is therefore perfectly in order for noble Lords to support the smaller variations around the mean in England or Scotland, if they so choose, and I support their amendments seeking greater flexibility there. However, the imposition of still further flexibility in Wales can be taken on board because it does not change the number of seats allocated to Wales, merely the distribution within it. As has been stated, this would allow greater flexibility in respecting natural communities, geographic sparsity and ease of travel.

Wales should have at least 36 parliamentary seats but that is not the issue at stake in Amendment 18. It gives the Boundary Commission for Wales greater flexibility, if it chooses to use it, to respond to the topography and communities of Wales. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, suggested, constraining them into a straitjacket imposed by Westminster is not helpful. I urge the Government to accept this amendment or at least table an amendment of their own to meet these pressing arguments.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hayter in her amendment and have added my name to the important amendment for Wales of my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, Amendment 18. I encourage them to press it to a vote. I shall not repeat the case that they made in Committee. However, the figure of 35 Members from Wales has been sacrosanct for decades in my long political career. Specifically, can the Minister say when that principle was breached in the past? Please give me the year. There may be one but it stands out as an exception.

The only matter that I wish to emphasise is that travel in south Wales is from north to south, down the valleys, and infrequently across mountains from east to west, mentioned by my noble friends Lord Grocott and Lady Hayter. My constituency for 41 years bordered that of my noble friend Lord Hain to the west. I can count on one hand the number of times that I went on political business to his constituency. Likewise, the Maesteg part of the Bridgend constituency to the east met mine on the top of a mountain. I probably went to that constituency less than half a dozen times, although many constituents from there came to work in mine. That demonstrates that the travel direction in Wales is north to south, not east to west, and that is the community interest.

The reduction in the number of Welsh seats now proposed would cause havoc in the make-up of south Wales seats, be a massive reorganisation and break up long-standing ties. The Brecon and Radnorshire constituency has been mentioned as one example where there should be special consideration. Coming from a family of sheep breeders, I enjoyed campaigning there and seeing the sheep of Breconshire. However, I travelled 40 or 50 miles there not looking for sheep but for voters—and towns, of which there are few and they are far apart. I pray in aid what Sir Alfred Mond, founder of Mond Nickel and ICI, and the MP for the old Carmarthenshire seat, once said. He later became the first Lord Melchett and his statue is in Pontardawe. He said that Carmarthen is not a constituency but a continent. The same could be said of Brecon and Radnorshire, and other large seats. There should be some flexibility and the number of seats in Wales should not stand at the figure now proposed.

17:00

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it was a delight to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, move the amendment. I recall her saying in an earlier debate that everything that could possibly be said had already been said. I suspect we shall hear the same in this debate. It reminds me of a time 30 years ago when I was a junior Whip in the Commons pushing through hundreds of Lords amendments. I had a deal with the opposition Labour Party; colleagues were speaking for one to two minutes each. Then the great MP, Sir Ivan Lawrence, got up and said, “Everything that could possibly be said on this amendment has been said, but not by those of us qualified to say it.” With his having spoken for 20 minutes, the deal fell through and we were there until midnight. I hope that will not happen tonight.

It was also a delight to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. He is a wee bit older than me, but I would love to have lived in that golden era where constituents loved their MP, did not want any boundary changes, were committed to the community and must have been appalled at having general elections where their MP could possibly be lost to them. It was a wonderful era and I wish we had it now. He mentioned there are many sheep in his constituency. In my part of Cumbria, there were infinitely more sheep than voters and my opponents used to claim that it was where my majority came from. Therefore, I congratulate the noble Peers who have proposed these amendments and spoken in favour of them. I commend them because they did so with an extraordinary degree of earnestness and a straight face.

Anyone who has not participated in the boundary changes game might have been fooled for a moment into believing there was a great mass of constituents who cared passionately about the exact boundaries of their constituencies and the necessity of retaining a relationship with the same MP. Who are we kidding? Let us be honest: the vast majority of constituents have not a clue where their constituency boundaries are and could not care less. They care about the politics of the MP and using their vote to change the Government, as we saw last year. Once an MP is elected, constituents care about issues and someone to take them up on their behalf. Boundaries are irrelevant. I only ever had one constituent who cared passionately about the boundary and that was the late Earl of Lonsdale, who was deeply upset that Willie Whitelaw, as he then was, implemented the 1983 boundary report which put a bit of Lord Lonsdale’s beloved Westmorland into the Cumberland/Penrith constituency.

All of us who have been MPs in a former life have played the boundary commission game, which is a bit like Monopoly but with electors in play rather than money. We try to land a ward or a parish which gives us the voters we want and try to get rid of wards which are unhelpful to our majority. Instead of playing with hotels and railway stations, we use rivers, roads and mountain ranges. We would happily split Park Lane if it aided us and disadvantaged our opponents. The Labour and Conservative parties would give away Park Lane to Lambeth if it helped them retain the seat or win the seat of Kensington and Chelsea.

We have all produced spurious arguments why our constituency boundaries must or must not be changed and have cited ancient history, travel-to-work areas or strong community ties. While there may have been some truth in these facts, the motivation for advancing them was all bogus.

I recall in Grand Committee the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioning that the River Tamar could not be crossed because it was a boundary since pre-historic times. I can imagine the Neanderthal Lib Dem predecessor to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, a good party hack, arguing before a Palaeolithic boundary inspector that their caves in Devon were a distinct community and different from those in Cornwall.

The real motivation behind the representations made by Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative Members and their parties to the Boundary Commissions and the inspectors is to carve up as many seats as possible to give the party more seats. There is nothing wrong or immoral about that, and in my experience the commission has never been fooled by any of these bogus political representations, no matter how hard or earnestly we tried.

What makes the work of the inquiry inspector more difficult is when there is a wide range of constituency sizes, thus permitting political parties to mount a range of suggestions for wards and districts to be included or excluded. I support the 10% range in the Bill, from a low of 95% to a high of 105%. My noble friend Lord Hayward, who called himself a political hack—he was a brilliant political hack—tells me that the model constituency will be 73,000 electors. This permits constituencies ranging from 69,350 to 76,650. That is almost 7,000 electors to move about and it should take care of all claimed, so-called unique communities which cannot be split, as noble Lords have argued.

Amendments 12, 13 and 14 would increase the range not to 7.5% but to 15%. Amendment 14 goes even further—to suggest an extraordinary 20% range. If the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, were accepted, one could have a constituency of 65,700 sitting next door to one of 80,300—a 15,000-elector variation. It was noticeable that all noble Lords from the Opposition who have spoken did not mention those figures. It is always: “A slight tweak here, a little difference there, a small percentage change here and there”. The figures are astronomical. I suggest that those figures are utterly unacceptable. They undermine the principle of having constituencies of similar size and electors having an equal vote. I say to my noble friend the Minister: do not play the Opposition’s Monopoly game; do not pass Go and collect 15% and 20% ranges; stick with the range in the Bill.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I think parliamentary language allows me to use the term, balderdash. In a stroke, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, dismisses the constituency link and the identity that people have in communities with one another, speaking to their Member of Parliament and expecting that Member to speak for them. That is why dividing communities, which so often happens with the narrow range, is not about the Member of Parliament and whether people hold them in contempt or could not give a damn about the boundaries, but about the community of interest that people have in their area and the expectation of a voice to speak for them.

All of us know that political parties put forward the best possible case to the Boundary Commissions to ensure they maximise their success in parliamentary elections and local elections. However, to dismiss the notion of a small additional variation in the way that the noble Lord just did is to be contemptuous of the electorate, citizenship and identity. If we want equality in the numerics, as the Minister said in response to Amendments 2 and 3, then let us have a national list system—the noble Lord has actually made a good case for it. Let us have total equality in a crude form of proportionality: the political parties put up their list, the electorate vote, and they get straight down the line the number of seats that the electorate have allocated themselves. None of us wants that, do we? Even the Liberal Democrats do not want a national list system, because they accept the importance of the community link and the identity that goes with it.

The way in which we have started to debate this gets off the point, which is that the Government have accepted that there are five exceptions. At a stroke, they have accepted that it is important to recognise difference, identity and geography. Those who had previously pressed for a larger variation have accepted that getting as close as possible to numeric values does matter—without employing a dreadful algorithm that could do the job for us, leaving us to pick up the mess afterwards. Therefore, 5% to 7.5% gives a greater ability to the Boundary Commission and those working for it to use common sense and ensure that people do not have a boat to get across the Mersey or, in the case of Iain Duncan Smith in the last proposal, to spend three hours going around a reservoir. It is about identifying what really matters, which is common sense, and the proposal of 7.5% in Amendment 13 does that.

I will say one word on Wales. I said in the Grand Committee that I was deeply impressed with the case that was made in relation to what the proposals would mean for Wales. It would matter in terms of the valley identity; it matters greatly. People made the case that, although they had travelled well out of Wales, many people had not actually travelled between the two adjoining valleys because of the nature of the geography. As I said in Grand Committee, my great-grandfather was born on the edge of Brecon and Radnorshire, and I was impressed, again, by the way the description of the travelling time and the size of that constituency affected the ability of the Member to do their job on behalf of constituents.

If we get back to constituents, identity, citizenship and the reason we have elections and the link represented by that crucial Member of Parliament with a voice for, speaking on behalf of and understanding their community, as well as the role of Parliament, we might just take a deep breath and say “When we start arguing on the head of a pin, that is when we turn off the electorate for good.”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am entering the debate on this group of amendments and speaking to them because I am afraid I disagree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I find his emphasis on community and the sense in which that plays a critical part in the function of a Member of Parliament a somewhat flawed idea.

The truth is that I live in the house I was brought up in; I have had three Members of Parliament and lived in three different constituencies. My constituency has not changed, but other bits have been added on or taken away during my lifetime. They were never part of the community, which is, after all, in the fens and surrounded not by mountains but great unpopulated areas; they are no more part of a community than Welsh valley communities that may, perhaps, have been connected to communities over the mountains. However, it was fair, and it is fairness that my noble friend Lord Blencathra managed to convey in his excellent speech. There is a huge difference in the way constituencies are distributed in this country, and this is unfair to the voter. It means that, if you start off with a variation with a wide spread, you end up with an enormous variation. I believe that the top 20% of constituencies total the same as, or more than, the constituencies that make up the city of Sheffield. That cannot be right.

17:15

I think that noble Lords might well consider that these amendments are the elastic amendments; they appear to be designed to stretch the starting point, which we should emphasise, of an electoral quota being considered by the Boundary Commission from a variance between constituencies, under the current rules, of 5% either way or 10% overall. These amendments propose 7.5% or 15% overall variance and, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra explained, those figures are sizeable when it gets down to actual voters. In its second part, the Lib Dem Amendment 14 talks of a 10% start-off and a 20% overall variance. This cannot be justified. However, it is as nothing to Amendment 18, which has a special case for Wales, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who I believe is the only one who will be speaking to us.

I should, perhaps, tell noble Lords that I have a fondness for Welsh politics since I acted as the agent for Plaid Cymru in my school’s mock election in 1959. We did not win, but we came a respectable second to the Conservatives, leaving the other parties far behind. I had not been to Wales at the time, and that may have stretched the political norms but no less than the girth that the noble Lords seek to encircle by their amendment. I suggest to them that we have an opportunity to discuss exceptionality in a number of subsequent amendments.

Meanwhile, I will go back to where I started and remind noble Lords that the electoral quota is a starting point. The differential from that quota at the beginning of a review means that any variation from the quota at the beginning can lead to very wide variations towards the end of the review period. The current rules are a sensible compromise for a practical fit between geography, community and constituency representation in Parliament. We should be very careful about departing from that principle.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am not going to go back over all the arguments about 7.5%, 5%, 10% and so on; they have been wonderfully rehearsed by noble Lords who are much more knowledgeable than I am. I want to take this opportunity to make a general point about the process in relation to parliamentary constituencies.

We go to great trouble, as noble Lords said earlier this afternoon, to protect the effectiveness and neutrality of the Boundary Commission. It seems to me to be in complete contradiction to that to allow the Government of the day, effectively, to decide matters that are greatly going to affect the electoral geography, such as the number of years—as we debated yesterday—for which a Boundary Commission report should apply or, in this case, the degree of variety that should be permitted in their size.

Across the Atlantic, we have a dire warning of what happens when you let politicians decide for themselves on the rules that will determine whether they are elected. The danger of appearing to be partisan when doing it our way seems to me great, and more effort should have been made by the Government and, I am sure, by others to achieve a consensus reform of parliamentary boundaries—we all agree there should be one—rather than one that can be accused of being partisan and that is, in any case, not being addressed with the seriousness that should apply.

I speak as someone who worked for the late Jim Callaghan, who was for a long time an esteemed Member of this House, as well as, briefly, an esteemed Prime Minister. In 1969, Jim Callaghan got his own party to vote down a set of recommendations from the Boundary Commissions for purely partisan reasons. Lord Callaghan, being of a different mould from many of the politicians who lead us today, had the decency in later years to admit that he had made a mistake and that he deeply regretted his actions. We are making a mistake in accepting a Bill so close to the one that was presented. It would have been very much better if there had been a process of negotiation and compromise, rather than an edict brought by a political majority. It will represent a further erosion of the esteem in which our Government and our Houses of Parliament are held.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I cannot understand why the Government continue to insist on this reduction in the variation of size between constituencies. The original justification was the Conservatives’ complaint that the width of variation created a structural imbalance in favour of Labour. Others have pointed out that this arose from differences in levels of electoral registration, in turnout and in the size of majorities. The last three elections showed that this allegedly structural bias had disappeared. It must be inertia at Conservative Party headquarters that explains why the Government are persisting with it.

As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said earlier, in our unwritten constitution the House of Commons is supposed to a body that represents communities throughout the United Kingdom, not just an electoral college that votes for the Prime Minister. The first-past-the-post voting system rests upon the principle that there is a close relationship between each MP and his or her constituency, which means that each MP, and each voter, needs to grasp which constituency they are in and its relatively natural boundaries. Throw that out—as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested that we have begun to do—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, argued, you have made the case for proportional representation instead. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said that this widening of variation would be “unfair to the voter”. Let us have a wider discussion about what a fair voting system would be, if he wishes. This is nothing to with overall fairness for the voter.

This Government are chipping away, bit by bit, at many of the assumptions and conventions which constitute our constitution. Last December’s Conservative manifesto pledged to establish a commission

“to look at the broader aspects of our constitution”

before the end of this year, which is now less than three months away. Since then, we have heard nothing about this, nor does there appear to have been any consultations with other parties about the membership and working of such a commission. I do not see how a constitutional commission could possibly gain legitimacy if it emerged only from the Government, without any wider process of consultation or consent. Can the Minister tell us if the manifesto pledge has now been dropped, delayed for the indefinite future or is about to be sprung on us without prior consultation?

In the UK’s constitutional tradition, each MP represents a place, a recognisable community. To reduce the variation among constituency sizes to the narrow band which the Government propose weakens that link between MP and local community. Honest and traditional Conservatives, those who still remember and revere Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli and Harold Macmillan, should join others in this House in supporting the amendment.

[Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I speak briefly against the amendments in this group.

As I said in my remarks on group 2, this Bill is about balance and fairness. It seeks to redress the inequality of constituencies. Fundamentally, the purpose of boundary reviews is to ensure that constituency boundaries are of equal size and based on updated figures. In reviewing constituency boundaries, I believe that a tolerance range of 10% strikes the right balance, allowing the Boundary Commissions to propose constituencies 5% larger or smaller than the quota. Any larger figure would simply mean that constituencies continue not to be properly equalised, perpetuating unfairness. I make these comments notwithstanding the exceptions made for protected constituencies, and with the addition of Ynys Môn.

In Committee and again today, some noble Lords have expressed a shared concern about the need for communities to be kept together within single constituencies, about particular geographies being respected, and, therefore, about greater flexibility being required in the redrawing of boundaries. This understandable sentiment has been balanced with the importance of ensuring that every elector’s vote carries the same weight; that every person has the same call on their local MP. The tolerance of 10% strikes the right balance, ensuring an approach that allows appropriate flexibility for the Boundary Commissions to consider important local factors such as geographical features and community ties, without introducing significant variability. Any greater tolerance for disparity between constituencies is totally inequitable. I ask noble Lords to consider that the elected Chamber—those Members of Parliament who are directly affected by any boundary changes—has agreed that the variance in seats of 10%, plus or minus 5%, strikes the right balance. I urge noble Lords not to support these amendments.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments are about equity and fairness—or, rather, inequity and unfairness.

I represented the people of Blaby—now South Leicestershire—for 23 years and I can tell those who have never been Members of the House of Commons that representing a constituency is a real privilege. Polling revealed that some 25% of people in each constituency know who their MP is. I was thrilled to be told that local polling said that nearly 50% of the people of Blaby knew who I was. Whether that was true, I cannot say; perhaps it was because they wanted to vote against me. However, I promise noble Lords that most people in this country are not bothered about who their constituency MP is. They are bothered about his or her politics and they want to know who that person is when they want some assistance: that is the truth. When my constituency lost a few wards, people said, “I’m sorry you’re no longer our MP”, and while they may have been sorry on a personal level, frankly, they could not care very much. I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra: every Boundary Commission review is plagued with party-political manoeuvring. I am afraid that I see that slightly in these amendments too, although they do not always work quite as well as they might.

Consistency in politics is a great thing, as it is in life. Of course, one can change one’s mind—circumstances change as a country evolves—but generally we should stick to what we say, say what we believe and believe what we say. We are discussing the electorate per constituency. I had meant to table an amendment to Clause 5, but with great efficiency I did not realise that it had to be done so swiftly, so I did not get it down, but I will speak on the percentages instead.

I stick with the Conservative manifesto upon which I was elected in 2010, which wanted to reduce the size of the House of Commons to 600 MPs. There was no party-political advantage in that, as far as I am aware. It was also in the Conservative manifestos of 2015 and 2017. I would love to know why it changed; perhaps the Minister can tell me. On 6 September 2010, when introducing the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that the percentage difference—which we are discussing—between Manchester Central and Glasgow North was 41%. In fact, that has got a lot worse. Glasgow North has remained approximately the same, but I looked it up today and Manchester Central has gone up by about 5,000, so it is probably about 45%. The discrepancy has grown, and that cannot be right. On this occasion, I agree with Nick.

17:30

Mr Clegg said:

“We settled on 600 MPs, a relatively modest cut in House numbers of just less than 8%, because it saves money … and because we think it creates a House that is sufficiently large to hold the Government to account while enabling us all to do our jobs of representing our constituencies. It also creates a sensible average number of constituents—76,000, as I mentioned earlier—that we already know is manageable … That is why we feel 600 is about right.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/10; col. 39.]

We are now talking about 76,000 as an average. I do not quite see why that has change either, because in the 2010 manifesto, of course, the Liberal Democrats, called for 500 MPs elected by PR—and that is why it was called the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill—and on page 88 they said:

“We will … reduce the number of MPs by 150”

to 500. What has changed there? There are too many Peers, I think we all agree with that, and perhaps we will all volunteer to go out the door today. There are too many Members of the House of Commons as well. Perhaps we could look at starting with a bit of a change: reducing the numbers in the House of Commons and the numbers in the House of Lords as well.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, in 2013 and 2018 plans for revisions to constituency boundaries were published. They did not find favour with MPs, the Government dare not even produce the 2018 report before Parliament for it to be considered, and these plans were never implemented. The plans themselves clearly demonstrated how much more massively disruptive all future boundaries will be compared with anything that has ever happened previously, when the boundary commissioners worked to their old rules, if they are now given very limited flexibility.

MPs on the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee looked at the issue in the light of having seen the 2013 proposals. There was cross-party agreement then that there must be greater flexibility in the numerical quota for each constituency than 5% either way. That cross-party group of MPs examined the issues in detail and concluded that in order to avoid large numbers of anomalies in drawing up new boundaries, and major disruption with every review in future, a variation in constituency electorates of up to 10% is really required. The amendments now being considered are a compromise between that conclusion and the position of the Government, who seek only a 5% variation.

Amendment 13, the position of the Labour Party, provides for a variation of 7.5%, which is exactly half way between the position of the Commons Select Committee in 2015 and that of the Government now. Amendment 14, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tyler, provides for 7.5% variation, but also allows the Boundary Commission flexibility of 10% in exceptional cases.

A short while ago the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested that there was a political conspiracy in these amendments, but the academic experts studying the issues have proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no party advantage at all in permitting greater variation. I draw noble Lords’ attention in particular to a Private Member’s Bill currently before the House of Commons, which proposes a 7.5% variation, with 10-yearly reviews. The sponsors of the Bill are Mr Peter Bone and Sir Christopher Chope. These two Conservative MPs can hardly be described as champions of liberal democracy or as socialist conspirators. They may be accused of disloyalty to Boris Johnson, but I have checked, and there was nothing in the last Conservative Party manifesto about a 5% variation from the average electorate.

The aim of roughly equal-sized constituencies is one that we all share. There are international standards that can be applied to the creation of constituencies of roughly equal size. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe says that

“in a majority voting system, the size of the electorate should not vary by more than approximately ten percent from constituency to constituency.”

The Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters produced by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission states:

“The maximum admissible departure from the distribution criterion … should seldom exceed 10%”.


The additional variations proposed in these amendments are within these guidelines. Sadly, the time for deliberation about the consequences of allowing only a 5% variation was extremely limited among MPs when they debated the issues.

In Committee, the Members present heard the expert testimony of Dr David Rossiter. He explained how the Boundary Commissions must work within the boundaries of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, very significantly, also within the nine recognised regions of England. With the likely population changes over the eight-year period between each review, there would be changes to the quota of constituencies to be created in eight of these states or regions. Four of them would gain a seat and see new constituencies created; four of them would lose a seat and see constituencies abolished. This would trigger major changes, in at least two-thirds of these states or regions, in constituency boundaries.

The movement of local government wards, to redistribute those voters, would trigger large-scale changes across the entire state or English region. With an abolished seat, over 60,000 voters would have to be redistributed. When added to neighbouring seats, nearly all of those would then be over quota. These surplus voters would then have to be redistributed to other seats, in turn sending many of them over quota, and so on. Similarly, with the newly created seats, around 60,000 voters must come from somewhere. Taking them from other existing constituencies will put those constituencies under the quota. The knock-on consequences of putting those voters elsewhere will also stretch across the entire state or region. Unless we change the rules, a small population shift in Kent could, for example, require major changes not just across Kent but in East Sussex, West Sussex and Surrey and involve the creation of illogical seats that cross those county boundaries. In every region or state it will be the same.

Splitting local government wards may ameliorate some disruption, but for many reasons it is not generally possible to do that. Many MPs have clearly not appreciated the fact that a constituency within quota is not safe from change. Moving one ward from a constituency to the next one will not be the end of the matter. The upshot of all this is that there will be major changes to the boundaries of half or more constituencies every review. Only about one in five constituencies is likely to be unaffected by boundary changes.

Earlier in the debate, the Minister praised those who have previously served the Boundary Commissions. Let us look at what some of them have said. As the then secretary to the Boundary Commission for England told the Commons Select Committee in 2015,

“the smaller you make the tolerance level from the actual quota, the harder it becomes to take into account properly the other factors that are mentioned in the Act, such as not breaking local ties, respecting local authority boundaries, and minimising change.”

It is clear that 5% is too small a variation. It means that we will have many illogical constituencies that will ignore local ties, local authority boundaries, communities and basic geographic considerations. More importantly, perhaps, they will not last for very long because every time there is a review, there will again be massive disruption to the boundaries, with at least half the constituencies having major boundary changes. That is why we need to give the boundary commissioners a little more flexibility.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it has been another long and interesting debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. As some noble Lords have said—I recall the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, giving a notable speech—we have to be careful about seeing it top-down. A great deal has been said about the disaster for local communities if their MP changes. That can be exaggerated. The important thing is that the political system delivers good service from elected representatives.

I remember being absolutely horrified when I lost my best polling district—it was part of East Sheen and I thought it could not be moved out by a Local Government Boundary Commission into another ward. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said, I am sure that nobody really noticed, for all my efforts over many years. I do not think we should exaggerate the sense that it is a disaster for a community if its elected representative changes.

The other thing I would say is that 5% tolerance either way is the existing position. It is not as if the Government have suddenly come out of the blue and said we must do this. Prior to 2011 there was no standard, but the coalition Government set in train the existing arrangements.

I thank those noble Lords who have put forward amendments similar to those in Committee. The arguments were much the same and I fear the response will be much the same. Amendment 12 is for a 12.5% difference, Amendment 13 is for a 15% tolerance, Amendment 14 is for a combination of 15% and 20%, and Amendment 18 is for up to 30% in the case of Wales. As I have clarified throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government believe that the current tolerance range of 10%—which is set out in existing legislation and agreed cross-party—remains the right one. This range allows the Boundary Commissions to propose constituencies up to 5% larger or smaller than the average UK constituency size. It is what we know as the electoral quota.

The Government are determined to ensure that all votes carry the same weight regardless of where an elector resides. I have been surprised that so many noble Lords are concerned at how equal the size of constituencies in this country might be. I can think of many things about which your Lordships might get exercised, but the idea that, in a democracy, the size of constituencies might be too equal seems an odd thing to get so excited about. Maintaining the current 10% tolerance is critical to delivering the Government’s 2019 manifesto pledge of retaining the status quo. It would be contradictory and counterproductive to wind back the current reasonable and practical 10% range.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, and again today, we have heard heartfelt and enriching anecdotes—I have enjoyed them—in efforts to emphasise the importance of community ties, local government boundaries and physical geography. The Government and the Boundary Commissions do not overlook these factors of importance. However, I repeat that the concept of equal votes—the simple idea that each constituency weight should count the same—is an equal, if not more powerful, factor. The Boundary Commission retains other criteria, and this is the cornerstone of our democracy. The only tool we have to ensure that equality—applying the electoral quota on a universal basis without introducing significant variability in constituency size—is to make the kind of provision in this Bill to sustain the current position, while simultaneously allowing an appropriate degree of flexibility to the Boundary Commissions so they can take account of some of the other important factors your Lordships have raised.

17:45

Deviations of up to 30% from a central point, as have been suggested in this House today, would cause an unacceptable disequilibrium. Deviations will indefensibly disrupt the equitable balance our current 10% tolerance range has established. We will stick to 10%. It quickly becomes apparent, as some noble Lords have pointed out, that when the 10% tolerance range is diverged from, the potential for disparity between elector numbers in each seat becomes unacceptably high. Using the House of Commons Library calculations —we all have different ones—a 15% range, as proposed by Amendment 13, which we are told may be pressed to a vote, would potentially allow one constituency to have 78,000 electors and its neighbour to have almost 11,000 fewer at 67,167. Some of the other amendments would allow greater differences. As previously argued in Committee and again today, my judgment is that there are no admissible arguments for having constituencies varying by up to 11,000 electors, or even 20,000 electors, as would be the consequence from other amendments. It is simply not just.

The Boundary Commissions would be granted room to manoeuvre within a 20% range for certain cases by the Liberal Democrat amendment. We are told that this would be in exceptional circumstances. I was taken to task earlier for “exceptional circumstances”, and up pops the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, with an exceptional circumstance amendment within 90 minutes. If a 20% tolerance were applied across the country, it would mean that more than 80% of constituencies—all but around 100 of the 650—would be untouched in the next review. That is at the opposite end of the scale from the kind of mayhem that some of your Lordships have been presenting to the House as resulting from what we propose. It would completely undermine attempts to update boundaries that are now approximately 20 years out of date. Amendment 14 proposes that that would apply only in certain districts in exceptional circumstances. However, if the Boundary Commissions were granted discretion to apply a greater tolerance in certain situations where they judge it to be needed, surely their job of constructing constituencies may in fact become more difficult and the outcome of boundary reviews considerably less certain.

It is not difficult to envisage that the Boundary Commissions would quickly come under pressure to use the discretion allowed by the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and when a commission used that discretion in one part of its territory, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, illustrated, a domino effect would ensue. It would be more than likely that other communities who perceived themselves as having cases just as viable would call for discretion also.

The Government cannot accept Amendment 18 relating to Wales. I was asked when the last time was that Wales had fewer than 35 seats: it was 1885. In that election the Conservatives, led by the Marquis of Salisbury, won 10 seats and the Liberals lost 33—so it cannot have been all bad.

We should be careful about pushing the argument that somehow this is unfair to Wales. Boundary reviews are not about losing or gaining constituencies. As I said at the outset, they are about ensuring that individual electors can feel that they make an equal contribution to deciding who will form the UK Government. The Government want Wales, like every other part of the United Kingdom, to be fairly represented. Wales has a solid system of local government. It has the Senedd Cymru, with legislative powers over a range of policy areas. It has a strong voice in Westminster, including through the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Grand Committee and voices on all Benches in the House of Lords—as we have heard again today, they are some of our most outstanding Members.

The Government are a passionate supporter of our United Kingdom. It is the most successful union of nations in history and I reject the argument that a change in representation at Westminster undermines the union. The union is strengthened by equal votes. Wherever a vote is cast, it should have the same power to decide who governs our country.

The Government are firmly committed to devolution and have devolved more powers to the constituent nations. This Government’s Wales Act 2017 strengthened the powers of the Welsh Assembly, which is now the Senedd/Welsh Parliament. In the additional layer of powerful devolved institutions, Wales is strongly represented. Currently, for each legislator, Wales has 23,000 electors, compared to 50,000 for the UK as a whole. We should be extremely cautious of talking down Wales and representing the idea that constituencies should be equal across our union as somehow a conspiracy against Wales. It is an advantage to democracy across this kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made another entertaining speech, taking us down memory lane. He mentioned Lord Lonsdale; I remember I had to wear a yellow rosette when campaigning with Lord Whitelaw in the north-west, I believe because of Lord Lonsdale—he was probably more upset about losing the yellow than he was about anything to do with constituencies.

The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, asked about the 2019 manifesto. I am afraid I cannot answer that. You have only to look at my grey hairs to see that it is a little while since anyone was foolish enough to ask me to help with a manifesto.

I did not agree with the response of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, passionate though it was. I always listen with tremendous respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is highly regarded in every corner of this House. The system this Bill enables allows for common sense; it allows latitude to the Boundary Commissions. However, we must recognise that one of the fundamental reasons the Boundary Commissions are as effective and respected as they are is that they implement clear and unambiguous rules. We have heard a lot about the attempts that political parties make to rig the system; usually, in my experience, they fail. All the clever arguments we put up are seen through, normally very skilfully, by the Boundary Commissions. When they act with clarity and transparency, steering clear of subjective judgments and rankings, the scope for disagreement and challenge will be limited.

The Parliamentary Constituencies Bill was introduced to ensure boundaries constructed in the early 2000s receive a greatly needed update and to guarantee that every vote across the United Kingdom carries more equal weight—we are all agreed on that, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, reminded us. Several other levels of tolerance—including that in Amendment 13, which was twice rejected in the elected House—were proposed, debated and rejected. That means the 10% tolerance range in this Bill, the existing system retained by the Government, has recently been reaffirmed on multiple occasions by the elected Chamber.

My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach made the compelling point that if you start from a wide base with a broad tolerance towards the natural evolution of constituencies to shrink and grow, you will have even greater disparity at the end of the boundary review period, which your Lordships have said should be 10 years. It is prudent to start from the sensible 10% proposition we have now. Retaining that is an important part of achieving our manifesto commitment of equalised and updated constituencies.

I therefore urge your Lordships to resist the desire to fix something that is not broken, however you look at it, in each of these amendments and to withdraw them.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I agree completely with the Minister that the union is most successful, and that we want to stay in it and keep it strong. However, I do not agree with the rest of his speech quite so much, particularly because one of the things about keeping the union strong is recognising the differences as well as the similarities. That particularly affects Wales; not just because it is Welsh, but because of its geography.

My noble friend Lord Hain, because he is working in Grand Committee on the Trade Bill, was not able to participate and therefore could not speak to Amendment 18. On his behalf, I want to say that the reason this has been put is that half the Welsh population live in just 14% of the Welsh land mass. That is different from virtually all of England. Only a small proportion of England is sparse, but 80% of Wales is. The geography is different. For a Parliament to be able to respond to a part of the nation that is so different by allowing greater flexibility about how it is represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom strengthens rather than weakens the union. I am sorry we could not hear from my noble friend today; he had wonderful maps he could have referred to in order to show this.

As my noble friend Lord Grocott said, this is about more than just arithmetic. Just as he said, the exempted constituencies show that. Geography is about more than islands; it is about valleys, mountains and other areas. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is wrong to say that this is about bogus arguments—I may not have called them “balderdash”, like my noble friend Lord Blunkett, but I do not believe these arguments are bogus. It is about the strength of community representation. It also depends on turnout, which is important, and the greater the feeling of some sense of community. There is no point having absolutely numerically equal constituencies if we then find that some people have to travel so far, for example in Wales, to meet their MP that the turnout ends up being much lower. The number of people voting is very different in each seat. We are trying to give the independent Boundary Commission a little more leeway to use its common sense—I am not saying that this would be for all constituencies—and not to have to split communities unnecessarily.

The noble Lord said twice, I think, that we were trying to safeguard the current position by keeping the 5%, but in fact it has never been used. It exists only on paper. The 2011 Act brought it in. It is not the “current position” other than on a piece of paper; it has not been used. Trying to pretend that this is retaining something is not true. As I said at the beginning, if 5% was right in 2011 for an average number with 600 seats in the House, almost by definition it cannot be the right number when we move to 650 seats. It may be dancing on the head of a pin, but sometimes allowing that pencil to go a bit more broadly will draw a better boundary.

I end on what my noble friend Lord Lipsey said. It would have been nice if we could have worked towards compromise in a cross-party way on this rather than by edict. Then we would have reached something that would be good for the whole of Parliament, rather than doing it this way. But this way we must do it. I will seek leave to withdraw Amendment 12 and then move Amendment 13 formally so that we can test the opinion of the House. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 12.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

13: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Electorate per constituency
(1) Rule 2(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (electorate per constituency) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (a), for “95%” substitute “92.5%”.(3) In paragraph (b), for “105%” substitute “107.5%”.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

As I indicated, in moving Amendment 13, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:00

Division 4

Ayes: 269

---

Labour: 130
Liberal Democrat: 82
Crossbench: 35
Independent: 15
Green Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 235

---

Conservative: 205
Crossbench: 27
Independent: 3

Amendment 14 not moved.

18:12

Sitting suspended.

18:32

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 15. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Clause 6: Taking account of local government boundaries

Amendment 15

Moved by

[Lord Tyler]

15: Clause 6, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) After rule 5(2) insert—“(2A) Each constituency in any part of Cornwall must be wholly in the unitary authority area of Cornwall Council, and no other authority area, except for the Isles of Scilly.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure constituencies in Cornwall remain within the unitary authority area of Cornwall, with the exception of the Isles of Scilly.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 15 in my name. Again, I am delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who has consistently endorsed my plea that the especially distinct identity of Cornwall should be recognised in this legislation. I am also pleased to have the support of my noble friend Lord Teverson, who has given great public service to Cornwall.

Members will know that every single group leader on Cornwall Council has also endorsed my proposition since we discussed this matter last, in Grand Committee. As they have reminded us, Parliament has an obligation to recognise the historic and cultural identity of Cornwall. The 2014 inclusion in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities spelt out that recognition of the unique identity and integrity of Cornwall, and the need to protect the political integrity of its territory. Uniquely, physical geography reinforces that separate identity. If you try to follow the boundary between England and Wales, or England and Scotland, or even Northern Ireland and the Republic, you find yourself following the devil’s own job. Indeed, you can find yourself endlessly crossing invisible lines. On the other hand, if you try to cross the boundary into Cornwall, you will get very wet. The constituency I served ran for miles along that natural boundary; the administrative separation is clear and logical. I would have found it unnecessarily bureaucratic and hugely time consuming to have to deal with Truro and Exeter council officials 100 miles apart, and my constituents would inevitably have suffered had the boundary been removed and a constituency crossed it.

As we all know, physical geography can determine human geography, and never more so than in the history of the Cornish peninsular. I admit that I am strongly prejudiced. As I mentioned in Grand Committee, my ancestors arrived in north Cornwall around 1066. Perhaps more significantly, I am directly descended from Bishop Jonathan Trelawny, on whose behalf the national song records that 20,000 Cornishmen threatened to march on London to secure his release from King James II’s clutches. This reminder of the extent of Cornish self-awareness, this pride in our distinct history and determination to maintain the identity and integrity of Cornwall is obviously very relevant for the Bill. Hence the support of Cornwall Council.

In Grand Committee, the Minister seemed sympathetic to our case, but then went off on a tangent about Devon and other English counties. I admit that the wording of our amendment then may have helped to create a misunderstanding. With the admirable assistance of the Public Bills Office, we have tightened up the amendment for this debate. It refers solely to the electoral integrity of Cornwall.

I acknowledge that the combination of 650 constituencies and the 7.5% margin, which we have just voted for, on either side of the expected base figure of around 72,000 electors will probably mean that breaking out of Cornwall’s traditional boundary may not be necessary in this review. However, it would surely be wholly preferable for the legislation to leave no shadow of doubt, any more than it does with the borders of England with Wales and Scotland. It could be helpful to create this clarity for future boundary reviews. Who knows how the electorates will vary in years to come?

One does not need to be a separatist to acknowledge the strength of this case. Indeed, I believe that the continuing unity of the United Kingdom depends on accepting the lessons of diversity here, as with the other Celtic nations. I beg to move.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this amendment, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his characteristically courteous and constructive approach in handling the Bill.

I strongly support the unity of Cornwall in parliamentary terms, so that its constituencies are solely within Cornwall. I appreciate that, as became apparent in Grand Committee, the case for Cornwall is echoed in other parts of the country. My noble friend the Minister made this point very forcefully in Committee. I think he cited Suffolk as an example, while acknowledging the distinctive nature of Cornwall. There are two aspects that make Cornwall unique. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, Cornwall is the only county that borders just one other; it is thus much easier to protect Cornwall’s unique position in any constituency review.

Secondly, and again uniquely, Cornwall has a distinct culture and language which mark it out. In 2014, this status was recognised in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. That distinctive character is underlined by the Cornish language and culture. The use of the Cornish language supports the visitor economy in Cornwall and is being used increasingly in tourism. A Conservative Government should be in the vanguard of protecting an indigenous language of these islands and indeed supporting the culture of Cornwall. This amendment presents a real opportunity to do so; a real way of accomplishing that.

I believe that in this legislation we currently protect the coherence of islands in our parliamentary arrangements, which is something that I strongly support. We do this in Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles, Ynys Môn and the Isle of Wight. If it is right to protect the integrity of specific islands in parliamentary terms, and I believe absolutely that it is, then it is right to protect Cornwall too. It is, after all, an island as well, but one that just happens to be joined to Devon.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. While he was a Minister in the Government, he did a great deal for Cornwall and visited the county on many occasions. I pay him great credit for that, as I do to my noble friend Lord Tyler for all his work while he represented North Cornwall and formerly the Bodmin constituency.

I came up from Cornwall this morning. It was pretty dark and dingy when I left, but one thing that you are absolutely clear about is when you cross the river Tamar. When I travel back to Cornwall, crossing the Tamar is something that I take note of. It is not like crossing the boundary from Wiltshire into Hampshire, Berkshire into greater London or whatever, it is completely different. It is not just a physical barrier in terms of a river that creates the boundary almost but not quite to the north coast—hence Cornwall is a peninsula rather than an island—but a boundary that marks the difference between what is a Celtic culture in Cornwall and a Saxon culture in Devon. That difference, I believe, is unique within what we refer to as England.

The amendment also refers to the Isles of Scilly. Why should we include them alongside Cornwall when we are not doing that with Devon? It is simply being pragmatic because the last time I looked, the Isles of Scilly have some 2,000 electors and I do not think that we would advocate a special parliamentary constituency for them.

This is an important amendment not just for Cornwall but for the different cultures and traditions that we have within the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, the difference in Cornwall is not just its language. It has been recognised under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities which, I stress, is not an EU measure but one from the Council of Europe of which we are still a member.

Another difference between Cornwall and Devon is one that people will be well aware of and is often celebrated: in Cornwall put jam on our scones first and put Cornish clotted cream on top and, in Devon, it is the other way around. We see that not as just a culinary difference, it is something where the Cornish culture marks itself out as being different. This amendment cannot be seen, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said in the last group, as having anything to do with political advantage. At the moment, Cornwall is represented—unfortunately in my belief—by Conservative Members of Parliament who have been properly elected. That may or may not change, but this will make no difference to party advantage. I believe that this amendment is important to our national integrity and is particularly important to the cultural history of Cornwall and that part of the south-west.

18:45

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard a Cornish voice that is almost as loud, although obviously not as musical, as the Welsh. Much of this makes perfect sense. Indeed, the issues raised here may also be felt strongly in the Ridings of Yorkshire or in the Black Country, even if they are not blessed with the same formal recognition.

The underlying problem is the Government’s refusal to understand communities, be these Welsh valleys or Cornish heritage. That is something I have heard a lot about, as my late sister-in-law, Ruth Simpson, was the first Labour mayor of Penzance. I have also spent a long time in Cawsand, which was—I hope this does not undermine the amendment—the old boundary between Cornwall and Devon, way beyond the bridge. That was a long time ago, but I certainly know the strength of that Cornish voice.

We hear these demands, but urge that we join together—as the Welsh, the Cornish and other locales—to continue to impress on the Government that communities, geography, nationhood, languages and the future of the Union matter, so that, even at this late stage, the Government might hear reason as the Bill returns to the Commons, and accept a flexibility to enable all these special areas to be recognised.

For that reason, though I think the noble Lord will not press his amendment, I hope we keep together on the main argument that constituency boundaries are too important to be decided merely numerically. They have enormous impact on the sense of fairness, representation and respect for national, regional or local history and for community.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this short debate. Its brevity does not detract in any way from the importance of the points put forward. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken. I have discovered that, as far as jam and cream are concerned, I am a Cornish man, rather than Devonian—not that I am allowed to eat such things any more; you can ask my wife about that.

I do not want to belittle the thing, but the one thing I would demur about is the suggestion that this Government do not care or have a concern about community. This Government have a profound concern for community, and every fibre of my being, in the life I have led in local government, reinforces that sense within me. I totally understand the passion, commitment and sense behind the amendment to protect constituencies in Cornwall.

I will not repeat the arguments that I made in Committee. There is a problem, and there is a reason why, in principle, it would potentially be difficult, in that other communities might argue and ask why they had not had the same protection. I mentioned Suffolk and Norfolk. I do not equate Cornwall with any other place—Cornwall is special—but, on the other hand, I remember a storm arising in a field in East Anglia when I was a very small boy, and my grandmother, who came from a long line of Lowestoft fisherfolk, as we call them these days, took my hand in hers and said, “Don’t worry, a storm can never cross the water,” by which she meant the River Waveney. There are places where boundaries are felt to be important. I believe community arises and is not measured against other people but within ourselves, within place and a range of things that make up who we are.

I understand where this amendment is coming from, and I understand the argument from community. I hope and expect that the Boundary Commission will recognise, with the latitude it has, the importance of community—including the sense of being Cornish. The Government are, however, committed to constituencies as equally sized as possible, and that aspect of the protection of constituencies, apart from with the islands, is held to be important.

The Government certainly understand the point. My noble friend Lord Bourne was manifest in this when he was a Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was kind enough to say so, quite rightly. The Government recognise the importance of Cornwall and being Cornish. Indeed, last year we provided £200,000 of financial support, I believe, to fund a range of Cornish language projects, as well as work to tackle barriers to systematic education provision around the Cornish language. Although I cannot accept this amendment, I assure the House that the distinctive nature of Cornwall is understood. I am reinforced in feeling able to advise the House that we do not need this amendment because, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, our expectation is exactly his expectation: we do not expect, given the 600 constituencies and the tolerance suggested, that there should be a case or a need for the new constituencies to cross the Tamar. It appears likely that they will remain within those bounds and, if I am allowed to express a personal view from the Dispatch Box, I hope that they will. I am sure that will be shared by many in the Government.

I respect the views expressed here, and I understand them, but I do not believe, given the potential knock-on effects, such as questions as to why other communities and places are not recognised, that we should put it in statute. I hope that, having heard those assurances— and I repeat the sense that the Government are well aware of the importance of Cornishness and Cornish sentiment—that the noble Lord, who has spoken so ably on behalf of that great county, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Tyler (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all Members who contributed to this short debate, particularly the Minister—and I will come back to him in a moment. In the meantime, I hope that all Members of your Lordships’ House recognise that the vote we undertook, less than an hour ago, to extend the tolerance either side of the quota norm to 7.5% actually makes it much easier for us to recognise Cornwall as a separate entity. That room for manoeuvre will, I think, as the Minister hinted just now, mean that there will not be another threat of a “Devon wall” seat. However, I do not take anything for granted: it might be that we will not have, when the Bill finally gets Royal Assent, that degree of flexibility. I just hope that we do. On the previous proposal for a seat that would cross the Tamar—the so-called “Devon wall” threat—I am sorry to say that a number of Conservatives, locally as well as nationally, just accepted it, which was very regrettable. We should have had unanimity across the parties, as we now have in Cornwall Council, as is represented by the letter it sent to us all.

The vote that took place less than an hour ago has made the situation simpler, because it is very unlikely that that threat to the boundary will happen again, as, indeed, the Minister has now accepted. I know that some would want to try to make sure that the removal of that threat became permanent. However, I am conscious, as someone who is keen to maintain the law and the constitution, that no Parliament can absolutely commit a successor, any more than a Government can. To pass an amendment at this stage might not be appropriate for the present review we are discussing and is unlikely to be necessary for a future review. Of course, that might not be a solid proposal if we get some fallback from our excellent vote of just a few minutes ago—but I think we can now be reasonably confident that there will not be another “Devon wall” seat in the immediate future.

I take seriously what the Minister has said. He said in terms, “Cornwall is special”. I have underlined that and write it in heavy type. I know he feels strongly about the boundary between Suffolk and Norfolk, which I happen also to know, but it is nothing like as firmly and clearly defined and delineated on the map of Great Britain as is the boundary between England and Cornwall. But I take seriously and respect what he has said. We all want to respect communities better and, par excellence, the community, history, integrity and identity of Cornwall is special. In the meantime, I am happy to beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 16. I remind noble Lords that Members, other than the mover and the Minister, may only speak once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 16

Moved by

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

16: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Improving completeness of electoral registers for purposes of boundary reviews etc.
(1) Within a year of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament proposals for improving the completeness of electoral registers for purposes of boundary reviews.(2) The proposals in subsection (1) may include requirements for either—(a) the Department for Work and Pensions to provide every registration officer with the name, address, date of birth and nationality of each individual in their district to whom they issue a National Insurance number ahead of their 16th birthday, and for registration officers to add to the full electoral registers those electors who they are satisfied are eligible for inclusion; or(b) the Department for Work and Pensions to notify individuals of the criteria for eligibility to vote and of the process for making an application to join the register when they are issued with a new National Insurance number.”Member’s explanatory statement
16 and 17 year olds are added to electoral registers for the purposes of boundary reviews, but many of them are not known to the registration officers. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make proposals for improving the completeness of electoral registers and suggests two possible ways in which the issue of a National Insurance number could trigger the inclusion of 16 and 17 year olds.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 16 as an important enhancement of the Bill, which would improve the accuracy and completeness of the electoral registers for future reviews.

The amendment has at its core the work of the Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act, which I chaired and which reported in July. We learned, in our extensive deliberations, that though electoral registers are primarily prepared for use at elections for voting purposes, they have other uses, such as enabling juries to be enlisted and providing proof of residence by credit agencies. Importantly, they are also used as a series of building blocks for constituencies and their boundaries.

Sadly, registers are far from perfect, but it must be right to get them as accurate and complete as possible. The committee made a series of proposals for improvement. The most glaring omission from registers is that 75% of young people known as attainers—people aged 16 or 17 who may be added to the register so that they are able to vote when they attain the age of 18—are not registered. They are very relevant to this Bill—hence the reason for this amendment. I am delighted that four Members subscribing to the amendment are former members of the Select Committee and cover the four corners of the House of Lords.

There is, too, precedence for this action, in that it follows on from the work of the House three years ago in its consideration of the Higher Education and Research Bill in 2017. The House approved an amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to enable higher education students to be easily registered, through collaboration between the Office for Students and electoral registration officers. A Department for Education guidance leaflet on facilitating registration shows that in one university, De Montfort in Leicester, of those students qualified to register, 98.5% provided details for registration. The amendment seeks to put all young people in the position of the De Montfort students, so that the present 25% registration rate comes more into line with that of their elders. The Electoral Commission paper, Completeness in Great Britain, indicates that the highest rate for completeness is for the over 65s, at 94%, whereas the lowest level is that of attainers—the 16 to 17 year-olds—which has declined from 45% in 2015 to 25% in 2019.

19:00

The amendment seeks to prescribe the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament proposals for improving the completeness of electoral registers for the purpose of boundary reviews. It would bring with it the bonus that a substantial number of young people who are entitled to vote would have the right to vote. Further, it suggests that this requirement could be met by the Department for Work and Pensions providing registration officers the details of individuals in their district to whom it had issued a national insurance number ahead of those individuals’ 16th birthday so that they could be added to the register. Alternatively, the Department for Work and Pensions would notify individuals of the criteria for voting and the process for making an application when they were issued with a new national insurance number. The former would lead the way in lifting registration for young people; the latter would help but is less certain to be effective.

As we have heard, the Minister is desperate for near precision in prescribing all boundaries to be within 5% of the average size, but the baseline and building blocks are in danger of being wildly imprecise if the bulk of young people are omitted from the registers.

I thank the many noble Lords who supported the amendment in Grand Committee, but the attempt to embrace the totality of the Select Committee’s recommendations was too much to find favour with the responding Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. However, I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, while having reservations about automatic registration in general, was clear that he supported assistance or automatic registration for attainers. This is the opportunity to make that change. This is important: young people should be part of the building blocks for constituency boundaries.

Earlier today, reference was made to unfairness to voters. The Bill, unamended, is unfair to young people, and I intend to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Wills (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I want to say a few words in support of the amendment, to which I have put my name.

In Committee, your Lordships heard a lot about the incompleteness of the electoral register and about the 8 million or more who are eligible to be on it but are not and are therefore unable to vote. We could, and should, do better in securing a more complete register. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, who so ably chaired the Select Committee on which I served—it was a pleasure to serve under him—has set out the compelling reasons why this is so important.

The amendment asks the Government to produce proposals to improve the completeness of the register. I can see no reason for that to be resisted unless, despite what they have said repeatedly, the Government do not want to improve the register’s completeness. Beyond that, the amendment encourages the Government to make improvements in one area of the electoral register that particularly needs improvement.

As the Electoral Commission and many others keep pointing out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has just demonstrated, the number of attainers on the register has fallen significantly over the last few years. Between 2015 and 2018, the registration rate for eligible 16 and 17 year-olds almost halved, and the introduction of individual electoral registration, for various reasons, has been a significant driver of such decline.

Quite apart from the general imperative, which, again, was much discussed in Committee, to ensure that the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies should be drawn on the basis of the most accurate and complete electoral register possible—the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has just reminded us of those arguments—there is, I believe, another reason why the amendment matters. Attainers are not the only group significantly underrepresented on the electoral register but they are important in one particular respect: Parliament makes the laws that shape the country that they inherit, so it must be right to do everything possible to ensure that they have every opportunity to shape Parliament.

I recognise that there may be libertarian concerns that registration should not be automatic but a matter of choice for individuals. However, the measures suggested in the amendment would be enabling; it is not a back door to compulsory voting. It would still be for the individual to decide whether or not to vote, but individuals cannot make that choice if the process of registration has passed them by—and the data show that all too often, that process does pass attainers by.

There may also be concerns about privacy. But as more and more services move online, the Government have developed some considerable expertise in securing the privacy of users. I support the amendment on the basis that the Government would be able to address any such concerns if and when they introduced any measures to increase the electoral registration of attainers.

The amendment would require the Government to take steps to improve the completeness of the register, and would encourage them to do so, for the young people who will inherit this country from us. I therefore hope that it is an amendment that all sides of your Lordships’ House will support.

[Lord Janvrin (CB)]

My Lords, I too—alongside the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who has just spoken—was a member of the Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. I have added my name to this cross-party amendment, as I continue to believe that the Government should address the issue of the completeness of the electoral registers as a matter of priority, and certainly in the context of this Bill.

As has been made clear, the amendment has evolved since Committee, with its focus on completeness and on attainers. I want to make three brief points on Report. First, I entirely accept that the Government recognise the importance of the issue of completeness, and that they are well aware of the missing millions, and of the evidence that we do not perform well by international standards. In Committee, the Minister said that they were not complacent, and that there was work in hand to address some of the issues. If that is so, it would be a very small step for the Government to agree to a deadline for bringing forward further proposals, particularly in the light of the committee’s recent report. It would show a sense of urgency, which is important.

Secondly, the focus in the amendment on doing something about attainers is worth highlighting. Attainers are in a different position, and this has always been recognised, in that their names can be considered for entry on the register before they attain the right to vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said, there is significant evidence that registration rates for attainers have dropped markedly in recent years. Therefore, there is real cause to focus on them.

Thirdly, my reading of the amendment is that it is compatible with the Government’s position on automatic registration. I understand the Minister’s position that, in principle, registering to vote and voting are civic duties. The amendment does not seek to challenge the Government’s view, in that it would be perfectly possible to accept it while holding firm to that principle. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this modest amendment as a way of working towards fairer constituency boundaries based on better data. It may be modest, but it is important in the wider context of the integrity of our democratic process.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I back this amendment with some vigour as the last of a cross-party group of colleagues who worked together in great harmony as members of the Select Committee established under the genial chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, to consider the impact on our electoral system of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013.

I note in passing that, when the legislation that became the 2013 Act was going through this House, I pressed for the swift abolition of the 15-year limit on the right of our fellow citizens overseas to vote in our elections. Though that has been promised in three successive Conservative manifestos, seven years have passed without action.

It has to be said that other members of today’s cross-party group behind this amendment worked much harder than I did on the recent Select Committee. However, lazy though I was, I quickly came to share their conviction that there was no more important issue in electoral affairs today than the need to improve—and improve substantially—the completeness of the electoral registers. It is a theme that runs throughout our report, published in June. Like my colleagues, I was struck by the extent to which we compare unfavourably with some other major democracies.

This simple little amendment would help not insignificantly to make our registers more complete. It is universally acknowledged, as we have heard in this debate, that not nearly enough of tomorrow’s voters aged 16 and 17 are being brought on to the registers in readiness to cast their votes when they become 18. I have always been keen to support an intensification of the ways in which electoral registration officers can fulfil this part of their duties. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions in this House, Northern Ireland has set a fine example in this respect, giving EROs ready access to schools and colleges.

Today’s cross-party amendment would enable attainers to get on to the registers more readily than ever before. It would bring them directly to the gateway of democracy. Two alternative routes are proposed. Under the first, attainers would be brought automatically on to the register where EROs were satisfied of their eligibility. Under the second, attainers would be notified about the process for acquiring the precious right to vote. The first route would take attainers through the gateway of democracy. The second would bring them to the threshold and leave them to decide for themselves whether to cross it and secure for themselves participation in our democracy. For those who believe that registration should be a matter of individual choice, the second route will seem preferable. But within the Conservative Party, there are many who regard registration as a matter of duty that everyone should be obliged to fulfil, as my noble friend Lord Cormack has pointed out in this House many times.

Finally, might I be permitted a brief historical comment? When election registers were introduced in the 19th century, the political parties fought tooth and nail in the courts to get their supporters on to them and keep their opponents off. Today, the supporters of this amendment from all parts of the House want to see the registers become as complete as possible. Is that not a cause for some rejoicing?

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, in the debate on this Bill in the other place on 14 July, the Minister Chloe Smith spoke about

“what we are doing to ensure that the registers are as accurate and complete as possible”

and said:

“We should encourage more people to register to vote.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/20; col. 1466.]


This amendment does nothing more than ask the Government to say how. It requires them to set out proposals for doing what they say they want to do in relation to young people and makes suggestions. It asks the Government to consider two different ways in which we could easily, and without cost, ensure that more young people are added to the electoral registers by the time they are first entitled to vote.

The Government say that the completeness of the electoral registers is back up to the levels that predated the introduction of individual electoral registration. However, as my noble friend Lord Shutt pointed out, the Electoral Commission showed in 2019 that while 94% of over-65s are registered to vote, only 66% of 18 to 19 year-olds are registered to vote. Those who will attain the age of 18 in the next year or two are supposed to be included in the electoral registers for the purposes of the Boundary Commissions. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, pointed out, the registration rate for this group has fallen dramatically. According to the Electoral Commission, only about 25% of attainers are currently registered, compared to about 45% in 2015. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for this House to insist that the Government lay proposals before Parliament to implement their declared policy of improving the completeness of the electoral registers and recognising the problem with young people in particular.

19:15

Linking the registration process to the issuing of national insurance numbers is an obvious way in which that can be done. If the Government were willing, the Department for Work and Pensions could notify electoral registration officers that young people must be added to the registers when they get their national insurance numbers. All their rights to be registered anonymously and not be on the public register could be properly protected. The Government have been reluctant to extend across Great Britain the model successfully used in Northern Ireland to register 16 and 17 year-olds at school but accepted that students, when registering for university, should be notified of the electoral registration process, thereby encouraging them to register, as the Government say they want.

We need a system for registering young people that works. I can think of no better way to do this than by linking the process with the issuing of national insurance numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, who sadly cannot be here this evening but is trusted by many Conservative candidates to advise on their campaigns, said on this issue in Grand Committee that he supported either assisted or automatic registration for all those about to attain the age of 18 and that they should be included in the electoral registers. Both options are possible with the amendment. He said that it was crucial to get people involved in the community and the politics of society from an early age. The amendment is about enabling that. We encourage young people to think for themselves and vote accordingly, and I urge this House to do the same.

[Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

It has already been mentioned that the cross-party House of Lords Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, recommended a system of automatic voter registration for attainers. Since the introduction of individual electoral registration, the number of young people registered has fallen among 16 and 17 year-olds, as many noble Lords have mentioned. Given this low number, the amendment seems a simple solution that will ensure that attainers are included on the register. That is now more important as the Bill proposes to use the data on the register to draw the parliamentary constituencies. Such a low level of registration among attainers should be a matter of concern, and without the change suggested by the amendment there will be less representation of young people.

Automatic registration is sometimes opposed on the basis that it is an individual’s responsibility to ensure that they are on the electoral register. This suggestion should not apply to 15 and 16 year-olds, who have no prior experience of the electoral system. There is therefore a strong case that it should not be their responsibility to ensure that they are on the register. This is a sensible arrangement to ensure that young people are on the register and therefore will get all the information required when voting takes place.

At present, the data is less likely to include the names of young people than older people. This means that the register will be skewed towards older people when it comes to voting, resulting in the views of young people in the UK not being expressed in our democracy. For that reason alone, the Minister should give the amendment great consideration. Making this easier, and in such a simple way, will go a long way towards having a much more accurate electoral register than we have at present. There has been agreement around the House tonight on the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has said that he will call a vote, and we on these Benches will support it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who tabled this amendment. It provides an opportunity for me to update the House once again on what initiatives the Government are undertaking to improve the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers, and to reiterate our arguments against introducing automatic voter registration.

I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for his excellent chairmanship of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 Committee and for its detailed report on how fit the electoral system is for today. I am glad that the committee was able to publish the Government’s response to the report yesterday, ahead of this debate, and I place on record the Government’s thanks to all members of the committee and its staff for the hard work they put into this important inquiry.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Shutt, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Janvrin, and my noble friend Lord Lexden, would require the Government to lay before Parliament proposals to improve the completeness of the registers. What is meant by “completeness” is not defined in the amendment, nor indeed in the rest of the Bill. For the Electoral Commission, “completeness” measures whether those eligible to be registered are on the registers. An alternative definition might be whether the registers contain all those who want to be registered and are eligible to be so. Nor does the amendment refer to the efforts to ensure the accuracy of the electoral registers. The Government believe that accuracy is just as important as completeness. Inaccurate registers lead to voting fraud and undermine public faith in the integrity of our democratic processes.

I am happy to be able to update noble Lords today on government efforts to ensure the completeness of the electoral registers. I share with many in both Houses the ambition that every eligible elector who wants to be included should be included on the electoral register. I have heard a lot from noble Lords about how this should be done. I do not think the outcome is in argument; the discussion is on how we get there. The Government strongly believe that it must be for the individual themselves to make the decision to engage with the democratic process, but government does have an important role in making the process as easy as possible to ensure that there are no barriers to registration. That is why this Government have been working hard with electoral administrators to improve the accuracy and completeness of the registers through initiatives such as online registration and reform of the annual canvass process.

I will highlight just a few examples of our work in this area. The introduction of online registration has made it simpler and faster for people to register to vote—it takes as little as five minutes. This improvement benefits all electors, young and old, including groups that have traditionally experienced barriers to making an application to register. Millions now apply to register in the run-up to elections so that they can have their say; it was considerably more difficult to do this in the past. Working with partners, the Government have developed a range of resources to promote democratic engagement and voter registration, all of which are available on GOV.UK, and which are aimed at electoral registration officers, civil society groups, teachers and others.

We are also in the process of implementing changes to the annual canvass of all residential properties in Great Britain which will improve its overall efficiency considerably. This includes local and national data matching, including that held by DWP, to allow EROs to focus their attention on properties that are likely to require additions to the register. This will allow electoral registration officers to focus their efforts on hard-to-reach groups—and that includes young people—and will play an important role in helping to maintain register accuracy and completeness. This is the first year of the reformed canvass, and anecdotal reports so far suggest that administrators have found the process much less bureaucratic and time consuming. No longer do administrators have to waste their limited resources confirming that people have not moved.

We are also analysing the impact of the new student electoral registration condition. Indeed, all noble Lords who have spoken today have mentioned the issue of attainers. This provision came into force in 2018 and requires that higher education providers in England comply with ERO requests for data. Providers are also encouraged to co-operate and work effectively with local authorities to promote electoral registration among their student populations. We need to give such projects time to bed in, and the Government time to see the outcomes they are looking for.

The strategy has also included providing ministerial and Office for Students guidance to promote higher education providers and EROs collaborating innovatively to suit local needs. We have no plans to extend the approach to schools. However, we remain supportive of the existing engagement between EROs and schools in their local areas. I know from my own experience in local government the extent to which EROs were working with their schools, as indeed were politicians, both national and local. Indeed, the Government encourage EROs to double down on their already impressive efforts and to continue to use schools to reach out to pupils, particularly those who will be of voting age within the next couple of years.

I hope this provides noble Lords with sufficient assurances that we are all trying to get to the same end; we need to be working together. The Government are dedicated to improving the accuracy and completeness of the electoral registers, while also maintaining electors’ individual liberty to choose to register of their own accord.

The amendment makes two suggestions as to what the Government might include in the proposals it would be required to lay before Parliament to improve the completeness of the registers. The first would see a form of automatic registration introduced for attainers—those who are too young to vote but who can register before they attain voting age—to ensure that they are registered to vote as soon as they become an adult. As I have explained to the House previously, the Government are opposed to automatic registration for reasons of both principle and practicality—and it does not matter what age the potential elector is. In terms of principle, we believe that registering to vote and voting are civic duties. It therefore follows that people should not have these duties done for them or be compelled to do them. In addition, treating attainers differently would lead to a lack of equity in the electoral registration system, and transferring responsibility for registering people to vote on to the Government would constitute a fundamental shift in how the registration system currently works.

There is also the principle of individual responsibility, which is why we introduced individual electoral registration in 2014. Automatic registration is not compatible with the idea that it is each eligible citizen’s own responsibility to register to vote. An approach based on individual responsibility also leads to the outcomes we all want to see. After the introduction of individual electoral registration, the registers for the 2017 and 2019 general elections were the largest ever. There is also some evidence from overseas to suggest that those who register themselves are more likely to vote. Individual electoral registration has worked.

The Government’s online registration service does exactly this: supporting citizens who want to register by making the registration process easier than ever. Satisfaction with the register to vote website is consistently above 90%, and it is regularly developed and improved.

19:30

Turning to the practicalities, we have many concerns about automatic registration. I will briefly—I promise—outline just five of them. First, it is almost certain that an automatic registration system would lead to a single, centralised database of electors. We are opposed to this on grounds of the significant security and privacy implications of holding that much personal data in one place, as well as the significant cost such a system would imply. Secondly, any system automatically registering citizens who, for example, are applying for a driving licence, a passport or universal credit could present accessibility challenges to those citizens who do not use any of those services.

Thirdly, there is currently no public service whose application procedures capture all the data required to determine eligibility to vote—name, address, age, nationality and immigration status. This means that any so-called automatic system would still require significant human intervention. Fourthly, electors have faith in our current registration system. The results of an Electoral Commission survey on the 2019 general election found that a net 78% of those surveyed were satisfied with our registration system. Of the net 10% who were dissatisfied, 9% said they should be automatically registered to vote and 1% said it should be compulsory.

Fifthly and finally, as the House has heard from noble Lords this afternoon, we should also take note of the experience of other jurisdictions that have introduced automatic registration. Registrations may have increased, but so have concerns about errors and inaccuracies. IER improved the accuracy of our registers by removing redundant and ghost entries and requiring that an applicant’s identity is verified before they can be added to the register. Automatic registration could lead to unsolicited poll cards being sent to house- holds, especially in areas with high turnover—student accommodation and private rented accommodation—opening the door to greater personation, postal and proxy vote fraud. The Government are not prepared to undo all this good work by introducing errors and inaccuracies through the back door, as automatic registration would surely do. Let us not forget that inaccurate registers facilitate voter fraud.

This is not an area where the Government are resting on their laurels. As I said before, I think we are all trying to get to the same place but in a different way. I want to assure noble Lords that we are undertaking considerable action to improve the completeness and accuracy of electoral registers, and great progress has been made. I therefore thank the noble Lord for his amendment. I hope I have gone some way to reassuring him of the Government’s intentions for improving the completeness of the registers and invite him to withdraw.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received no request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Shutt.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who spoke in favour of this amendment, which is everybody bar the Minister. It is important that this is an all-party affair and that registration is seen as beyond party. I am very disappointed in the Minister’s response, but not surprised. I do not understand how registration is a voluntary act, yet you can be fined if you do not register. That is a very strange form of volunteering.

The Minister has said a great deal about what the Government are doing. We heard about it in Committee and it is all commendable stuff. However, she has not said, for example, how it can be that in 2015 45% of attainers were on the registers and it is now down to 25%. That seems to me failure; it is not success.

I do not think this is good enough. It is not good enough for our young people, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.

19:35

Division 5

Ayes: 293

---

Labour: 133
Liberal Democrat: 77
Crossbench: 62
Independent: 13
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Green Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 215

---

Conservative: 196
Crossbench: 14
Independent: 4
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

19:48

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 17. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Clause 7: Protected constituencies

Amendment 17

Moved by

[Lord Lipsey]

17: Clause 7, page 5, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) a constituency named Brecon and Radnorshire with identical boundaries to those of the existing Brecon and Radnorshire constituency”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates an additional protected constituency to make this seat geographically manageable.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we have had a long, hard afternoon and tummies are rumbling, so I genuinely will not detain the House for long. An absolutely overwhelming case was made in Committee for this amendment exempting Brecon and Radnorshire from the 5% leeway allowed, but it has not got anywhere. The noble Lord, Lord True, was gracious enough to find time to discuss it with me one on one, though he did not give me any hope. I am sad to say that Ministers in the other place were not so prepared to have a meeting with Fay Jones, the Conservative MP for the seat, and I regret that.

Anyway, one has to know when one’s goose is cooked, so I accept that this will not happen, though the people of Brecon and Radnorshire will resent the way the Government have been pursuing what they will regard as their war on Wales.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, my apologies—I was momentarily distracted. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, had come to the end of his speech. He had certainly stopped speaking. Did I not hear him?

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

I have stopped. No word issues from my mouth.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, could repeat what he just said. I am afraid I was unable to hear him.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

No words are issuing from my mouth. I have finished; I have stopped; I am ended.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

Could the noble Lord confirm whether he intends to move his amendment?

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

I intend to withdraw it after the Minister’s reply.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I think—I think—I was right the first time and the amendment has been proposed.

[Lord Wigley (PC) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Lord on this amendment and to introduce my own amendment, which is linked to it. The noble Lord spoke with passion on this matter in Committee and his commitment to Brecon and Radnorshire inspires us all. We all have our memories of the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency. It has been represented by three different parties over my political lifetime. I remember going to Patagonia in 1965 with Tudor Watkins, who was then the Labour Member of Parliament. I served with Caerwyn Roderick, who took over subsequently, and we had Richard Livsey, of course, who was a colleague in this Chamber of many noble Lords. We also had Jonathan Evans as a Conservative MP. All three parties—Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative—had their own roots in the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency and they all had representatives of calibre. It would be a tragedy if a constituency such as this, with its rural nature, was lost just to get the sums right over the whole of the UK.

My amendment links the constituency of Montgomeryshire into this equation. Montgomeryshire is also a rural county—a scattered rural county. I declare an interest as my father and all his forebears came from Montgomeryshire. My wife, Elinor, was born in Llanidloes and both her parents had all their roots in Montgomeryshire. It is a mellow county that does not look to the craggy wildness of Gwynedd to the north-west or to the industrial belt of Clwyd to the north-east. It is a county in its own right and should remain as such. I believe that the way to handle this issue is to define the county of Powys as having two integral seats in the House of Commons. By deciding that those two seats stand, you define to the north—the north-west and the north-east—an area that has a character of its own and can be adjusted to have the appropriate number of representatives in the rural west and in the industrial east; likewise to the south in the industrial belt running through south-west Wales.

I believe that getting Brecon and Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire right—getting the county of Powys right—in the Bill gives the opportunity for the commissioners to do justice to the rest of Wales. That is why I am delighted to support the noble Lord’s amendment and to put forward my own.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to both amendments in this group. In Committee, I spoke to the noble Lord’s similar amendment to add Brecon and Radnorshire to the list of protected constituencies in Wales, and I would like to expand on the comments I made then. I am very familiar with both the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency and the Montgomeryshire constituency, having campaigned and canvassed in both over many years. I can perfectly understand the motives behind these amendments and the desire to protect these constituencies’ borders. Both are in beautiful, rural mid Wales and have a long history, Brecon and Radnorshire having existed since 1918 and Montgomeryshire since an incredible 1542. It is understandable that electors feel a close affinity with their constituency and that a significant community cohesion has developed over many years.

Brecon and Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire hold a special place in the hearts and minds of Liberal Democrats too, and we are proud of the way in which our MPs, Richard Livsey, Roger Williams and Jane Dodds in Brecon and Radnorshire, and Clement Davies, Emlyn Hooson and Alex Carlile in Montgomeryshire worked on behalf of their constituencies and communities over the years.

But now, of course, regrettably, all the constituencies in Wales are facing upheaval and a new reality as a result of the Government’s decisions in this Bill. However much we would like to stay within the comfort blanket of our present constituencies, we have to accept that we cannot lose eight MPs and expect constituency boundaries to remain the same. I am content with the decision that Ynys Môn will become a protected island constituency, but while that makes sense, creating another protected constituency will have an adverse impact on all the other new constituencies across Wales. We must have a fair system that is applicable to all constituencies and we must now have the confidence to allow the Welsh Boundary Commission to work within that system.

However, experience has shown that MPs who represent larger constituencies face a number of practical issues. An example is whether they should establish more than one constituency office—one in the north and one in the south of their area—so that constituents have access to them. How many staff do they need in order to run more than one office? Also, how do they deal with the media that question their expenses? The expenses of an MP in the largest constituency by area in the UK are often compared adversely with those of an MP in the smallest and most compact constituency. I hope that the Government will help to prevent this sort of unfair criticism in the future.

I finish by reiterating one other point I made in Committee. With a reduced voice from Wales in Westminster now, I hope that the Senedd will take the decision to increase the number of Members that the electorate of Wales can elect to be their voice in Cardiff. During the past few months, the Senedd has shown the people of Wales that it can use its powers effectively, and now it must give itself the tools to do so even more effectively.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has withdrawn from the debate and so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments draw attention yet again to the problems caused by any attempt to impose strict uniformity on constituencies based on a simple number count. I am particularly drawn to Amendment 19 as it recognises Powys as a county. The integrity of council boundaries has been the subject of much support in debates on this Bill. My noble friend Lord Tyler raised similar issues in his Amendment 15 which emphasises the territorial integrity of Cornwall and its distinct identity, which is clearly fostered by its geographical remoteness.

20:00

I feel that these debates have been too MP-centric; we should concentrate more on the needs and interests of constituents. Let me briefly explain what I mean. I was very proud to be Assembly Member for Cardiff Central for 12 years. That is the smallest Welsh constituency, in geographical terms. Out of rush hour, I could drive from one end of my constituency to the other in 15 minutes, and I could walk it in an hour. My constituents identified as Cardiffians, however, rather than as Cardiff Central residents.

I always said I had the best bits: Cardiff Castle; St David’s Hall; the magnificent Cathays Park; a whole phalanx of university institutions, such as Cardiff University—for which I declare an interest as chancellor —Cardiff Metropolitan University, the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama, the University of South Wales, the University of Wales headquarters, the Open University headquarters in Wales; and, probably most importantly of all, the Principality Stadium. The point I am making is that all my constituents would be familiar with all those places. When they went to a pantomime at Christmas, it was at the New Theatre. They shopped at the same Marks and Sparks. On a sunny summer’s day almost all of them, it seemed, would walk around Roath Park. My point is that they had a community of interest and experience.

However, my experience as an AM was in stark contrast to Brecon and Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire. Both are large rural constituencies and, importantly, together they make up the county of Powys. If you add their electorates together you get a giant 105,000, which would clearly be beyond the allowed variation to create one constituency. Their geographical size makes community of interest a more difficult issue. It takes almost two hours to drive the 72 miles from Ystradgynlais, in the south of Brecon and Radnorshire, to Llaithddu at the other end of that constituency, so, clearly, local people do not all use the same park. Montgomeryshire is in much the same vein—similarly large. But what they do have in common is the provision of similar council services and a strong rural Powys identity, and that should be preserved.

The Government have already accepted the principle that some constituencies— islands, for example—have such distinctive features that they cannot be shoehorned into the Government’s balance-sheet approach to the electorate. I welcome the inclusion of Ynys Môn in this list, but it is certainly not the same as the Isle of Wight. For example, there is a road bridge across to Ynys Môn, which makes a big difference to your awareness of it as an island. I would say that what is good for Ynys Môn is also good for Powys. I acknowledge the issues this raises, but deep rurality and sparse population are surely important characteristics that should be taken into account. I urge the Government, even at this point, to consider this issue in relation to these two constituencies.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I must declare an interest, in that my grandfather was from Llanfihangel-yng-Ngwynfa in the deepest rural part of Montgomeryshire. The boundary commissioners proposed in 2016 to link north Montgomeryshire with South Clwyd. I suspect that that proposal may be once more on the table following this Bill—it looks all right on a map.

Earlier this year, when I was recuperating from illness, I persuaded my wife, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to drive me over the Berwyn mountains from the valley of the River Dee. We took the mountain road from Glyndyfrdwy, in Denbighshire and in the South Clwyd constituency. Unfortunately, I had forgotten that the tarmac runs out at the bwlch—the top—and that the track thereafter was unfit for motor vehicles. Naturally, I insisted on going on. It was a hair-raising experience for the noble Baroness. We bottomed out on the fissured and deeply rutted track a few “expletives deleted” times. The only vehicle we met belonged to some Midlander holidaymakers bumping along, who had lost their way blindly following the satnav and were 10 miles adrift.

When we got down the other side of the mountain and the noble Baroness had calmed a little, we were in the Ceiriog Valley in a different county, the county of Wrexham. However, we were still in the Clwyd South constituency. The River Ceiriog runs along a high-sided valley into the River Dee some 20 miles to the east at the English border. We had to go west over another mountain on a single track road, fortunately this time tarmacked, to reach Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, once in the Denbigh constituency, but now in Montgomeryshire. There, we were in the Tanat Valley. The River Tanat runs into the Severn, again far to the east over the English border.

There was another range to surmount to arrive in the valley of the River Vyrnwy and yet another range between us and the Severn valley around Newtown. To get from where we started in Clwyd South to the nearest point of Montgomeryshire by an ordinary double track road, would have been a 30-mile trip through Oswestry in England and a 60-mile trip to Newtown. The geography of Wales is such that the main rivers run from west to east. The Severn traverses Montgomeryshire to Shrewsbury and the Wye crosses Brecon and Radnor to Hereford. Between these two major river valleys there are mountains, through which there is a single winding road, the A483. This was termed the deadliest in Wales two years ago, with 4.3 fatalities per 10,000 inhabitants. To the west, over the waterfront, the rivers run the opposite direction, east to west, into Cardigan Bay in the constituency of Ceredigion. It is a long way to Aberystwyth, and I hope the Boundary Commission does not start adding or subtracting populations over there.

One cannot alter geography by Act of Parliament. Each valley contains individual communities where even the language changes and the accents vary. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, made the same point in the debate on the fifth group today. This is where the concept of strict quotas falls down. The Government suggested and will no doubt cling to the 5% variant either way. Fortunately, we have now voted to extend it, and I trust Government will not seek to reverse our decision. The Minister said he wanted Wales to be fairly represented and that really does not depend upon meeting quotas of voters.

Each of these two constituencies has approximately 55,000 voters, and each has huge and difficult terrain. If the tie between MP and constituent is to mean anything, it is senseless to carve up these communities. Over such a wide and diverse area where the geography separates communities, it is not surprising the problems for an MP are various, diverse, and unique. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, speaking earlier today, that there should be a community link, a common interest, so that an MP can speak for that community, one hopes with a single voice.

However, I must consider what effect the permanent maintenance of an untouchable pair of constituencies would have on adjoining constituencies to the north, west and south. In the end, I fear an even worse melange may be the result. In the debate on group 5, my noble friend Lord Rennard made a passionate plea for flexibility, and I entirely agree. It is for that reason only that I fear I cannot support either amendment, but I hope that the Boundary Commissioners, when they meet, take into account the special problems of the county of Powys, act flexibly and come up with something more sensible than the proposals of 2016.

[Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken to these amendments. It has been a very good gathering of Welsh Peers—when we speak about Wales, we know what we are talking about from our experience of travelling around Wales. My noble friend Lord Lipsey has always made a very good case for keeping Brecon and Radnorshire as a protected constituency; likewise Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.

These two constituencies cover a large geographic area of Wales, with Brecon and Radnorshire being the largest constituency by area in Wales or England, with a population of around 69,000 and an electorate of 53,000—we are talking about very big areas. Today, even with all the new technology, the MP needs to be seen and the constituents need access to their Member of Parliament. It is already difficult for the MPs to serve their constituencies, because of their size. A larger geographical constituency would only increase that difficulty, not only for the MPs but for the political parties that have to organise for elections and communicate with the electorate. How much more difficult will this be if the boundaries are extended?

We will continue to press on the Government that the geography and communities of Wales should be regarded as important considerations when looking at constituency boundaries. I hope the Government will listen to reason as the Bill returns to the Commons and add some flexibility, to enable these large geographical constituencies to be recognised, the main argument being that constituency boundaries are too important to be decided just on numbers. Such changes have an enormous impact on fairness, representation, and respect for local history, the people and the communities concerned. In Wales, the Welsh language is very important as well. I think a good case has been made and I trust the Minister will take note of the arguments we have put tonight.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, again I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that I am sorry if he felt disobliged by anybody. To him and to any other noble Lord who wishes to discuss an amendment to a piece of legislation, I say that as long as I am at this Dispatch Box, my door is open to any noble Lord of any party who wishes to discuss a matter before the House. I was glad of the opportunity to talk to him. It is unfortunate, from his point of view and that of other noble Lords who have spoken, that amiable conversation does not always lead to identity of view.

I will not, at this late hour, repeat to the House the fundamental arguments as to why the Government are opposed to additional protected constituencies; I point out merely that had it been the policy of the Government to entertain protected constituencies beyond the islands we have discussed—and the Government did show flexibility in relation to Wales, with the decision on Ynys Môn—and had the Government been open to protect a particular constituency, I have no doubt that your Lordships would have been detained by not two or three but 40 or 50 amendments claiming due protection for different parts of our United Kingdom. Saying that is not to disparage in any way the passion, knowledge and commitment with which this amendment was argued —as, indeed, was the earlier amendment on Cornwall. I resisted the amendment on Cornwall for the same reasons.

I will add briefly some comments on the two amendments. This evening noble Lords again repeated arguments that were put in Grand Committee relating to the challenges associated with the size of large rural constituencies. We heard again tonight from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said in Grand Committee: it takes two hours to drive from one end of Brecon and Radnorshire to the other. The noble Lord said, I think, that the Prime Minister could drive across his constituency in 10 minutes. I wonder if that is still the case, judging by the appalling delays being inflicted by Mayor Sadiq Khan on drivers in London currently.

20:15

Be that as it may, I recognise that rural constituencies present challenges. However, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said in Committee, these can be overcome, particularly in an age of technological change. I respect the love for these communities that has been expressed in the House tonight, and I understand the factors involved. Living in a large rural area is certainly different from living in a crowded city, and not only in terms of travel and transport. Is that, however, a reason to give one voter greater influence than another in choosing the Government? If it is, then we could not stop just at Brecon and Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire. Five constituencies in Scotland are between one and a half and four times the size of Brecon and Radnorshire. My noble friend Lord Blencathra also reminded us that his former constituency in the Lake District was larger than Brecon and Radnorshire, with comparably difficult terrain to contend with.

By protecting Brecon and Radnorshire, and Montgomeryshire, we would implicitly be inviting a demand to protect Ross, Skye and Lochaber; Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross; Argyll and Bute; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey; and Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale—just to mention constituencies in Scotland. That would seriously affect our overall aim of voter equality.

I take the point about islands—as I drive across the Menai bridge I feel that I am entering an island. The current protected constituencies share common characteristics: they are exclusively islands with sizeable surface areas and electorates. Brecon and Radnorshire and Mongomeryshire, like Cornwall, do not share these characteristics.

I will not repeat the arguments about Welsh representation and the Union. I made those—I hope with some force—in relation to an earlier group, but I underline that we believe that Wales’s representation is strong and the Union is best served by equality of representation in this United Kingdom Parliament.

The Government are committed to delivering equal and updated constituencies so that UK electors can be confident that their votes are of equal strength. Each additional protected constituency affects the underlying principle of equally sized constituencies, whether it is 5%—the Government will respectfully reflect on what the House has said about that—or a higher number. The Boundary Commissions have substantial flexibility in the existing system and the responsibility to look at a number of the factors raised this evening.

For these reasons and those I addressed in relation to Cornwall—an equally loved part of our United Kingdom —the Government will resist the amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw it.

[Lord Lipsey (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I think that the friends of Brecon and Radnorshire should have a good party when coronavirus has departed and we are no longer bound by the rule of six. For all his courtesy, however, I am afraid I will not be able to invite the Minister. All that needs to be said on this subject has been said, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Amendments 18 and 19 not moved.

House adjourned at 8.19 pm.