House of Lords: Appointments

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we have no plans to do so.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the Burns report. When the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House reported on 31 October 2017, it made some judgments on what the relative size of the political parties would be in 2022. It suggested that the Official Opposition Benches should have about 166 Peers as the number in the House reduced, while the Conservative Benches would have around 210. Today, we see the Labour Benches at 167—roughly right—but the Conservative Benches are 47 Peers higher than anticipated in the normal reduction of the House, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. That might not have been evident in Monday evening’s votes, perhaps because the Official Opposition are punching above their weight and a number of Conservative Peers just went home. However, is it not the case that the Burns report was accepted by all parties in your Lordships’ House as being a way forward? Is this not another example of the Government thinking that the rules apply to other people but not themselves?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness opposite. I note that the Labour leader has said that he wants

“a democratic second chamber representing the nations and regions of the UK.”

I am sure that that gets fervent support on the Benches opposite. I repeat the point that I made: there is a factor in the way that this House operates. The Government have suffered 164 defeats in this House in two years—well over twice as many as were inflicted on Gordon Brown’s whole Government and more than in the first five years of Sir Tony Blair’s Government.

Downing Street Event

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, whenever I hear Ministers talk about “in due course”, the ghost of Sir Humphrey arises. But let us be clear: lockdown was tough. Throughout it, most of us stuck to the rules, despite personal sacrifices. Noble Lords will have heard some of the examples and testimonies from around the country, and some of those stories are absolutely heart-breaking.

But for those who did not stick to the rules, the full force of the law was used, leading to criminal convictions. By Christmas, in Westminster Magistrates’ Court alone, there had been more than 2,000 prosecutions for ignoring lockdown, breaking quarantine, and hosting or attending parties. Does the Minister agree that the law should equally and fairly apply to all? I suspect I know the answer to that one; I suspect he is going to say yes. So, my second question is more important: why does the Prime Minister need an investigation into whether he attended a party in his own back garden?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, adherence to the law is important, and the noble Baroness is correct to anticipate my answer on that point. As I have told the House, an investigation is already taking place into a number of events that are alleged to have occurred in Downing Street and elsewhere. The primary purpose will be to establish swiftly a general understanding of the nature of the gatherings, including attendance, the setting and the purpose, with reference to adherence to the guidance in place at the time. That is an ongoing investigation.

Legislation: Skeleton Bills and Delegated Powers

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, let me first say how grateful we are to the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, for the opportunity to debate these two reports today and for the excellent way in which she introduced this debate, which set us off in the right direction. She mentioned the House of Commons having its own committees; one of the things I always say to new MPs about the things that I wish I had known as a new MP is about these two committees and how useful the reports they produce are when examining legislation. Although we have had a brief debate, I hope we will have a further opportunity, when the Government respond to these two reports, to debate them alongside the Government’s response to look for the way forward.

The debate today has been thoughtful and proportionate; there is always a danger that it can descend into a whinge session on all the things we think are wrong. What has happened today is that we have seen productive and sensible suggestions for ways forward. I am not saying that there are no circumstances in which a Government should introduce a skeleton Bill, and I do not think that was the consensus today. But essentially, if it is deemed necessary to do so then the means by which the provisions are considered need to be improved.

These two reports have identified three broad categories regarding legislative scrutiny. One is the relationship between Parliament and government, and therefore the role of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Rooker made a point which I had also intended to make: too often, the Government confuse and conflate the arguments between the Commons and the Lords, but it is actually between the Executive and Parliament where the debate should be had. Thinking about the Strathclyde report, when I became Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships’ House one of the first things I faced was Jacob Rees-Mogg—perhaps in the role of Cromwell, I thought, having listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—threatening this House with 1,000 new Peers if the Government did not get their way on a piece of legislation.

The second category was on the balance between primary and secondary legislation. The third is the slide, whether deliberate or just careless, into bad practices in drafting and considering legislation that undermine parliamentary democracy and therefore undermine good legislation.

The use of delegated powers and secondary legislation is not inappropriate in every circumstance; it is certainly not for the normal uprating and relatively minor and non-contentious issues. There generally is no issue where policy has been clearly set out in primary legislation and the SI or delegated legislation does not deviate from it. However, using delegated powers to avoid effective parliamentary scrutiny, whether because the detail is unavailable or because it is too time-consuming to introduce primary legislation—too much hassle—is where the problem arises.

The concern about skeleton Bills and delegated powers is not new. As we heard, in 1992 Lord Jellicoe’s committee responded to the “considerable disquiet” on this issue. That led to the establishment of what is now our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Cabinet guidance on legislation still refers civil servants and Ministers to that Lords committee, yet the latest version of the guide, produced in 2017, down- graded how Governments respond to its recommendations. Instead of the Government seeing the DPRRC as an aid to good legislation, they have moved towards seeing it as a challenge to them getting their own way.

In 2018, our own Constitution Committee reported on delegated powers and the legislative process, and it identified similar concerns. At that point, I had identified two examples where I thought there was inappropriate use of secondary legislation. The first was in December 2010, with the increase in higher education tuition fees from £3,000 to £9,000—that was clearly a policy issue. The second was on tax credits in 2015, where this House did not vote against an SI but just asked the Government to bring in mitigating measures before taking it forward. As your Lordships will recall, the Government hugely overresponded and overreacted to that when we saw the Strathclyde report.

Neither of those examples would have fitted the statement by Chris Grayling, the former leader of the Commons, that SIs were for “minor, technical and mundane” changes. I think we have moved a long way from that. I would argue that the process used by the Government in those two examples made those issues even more contentious than they needed to be.

Another example is the Childcare Bill in 2016, which in the Government’s first Session started its parliamentary passage in the Lords, mainly because the broad policy objective was uncontroversial. But it rapidly became clear that the detail was unavailable and a view had been taken that that could be sorted out later in statutory instruments, even including a provision providing for a custodial sentence. Then we had the Children and Social Work Bill, which contained 55 references to the use of secondary legislation, though no drafts of those orders were available, and 20 clauses on social workers with all the detail in regulation. About half the Bill was framework or skeleton.

I understand the arguments that legislation may need to be updated regularly or that consultation is required, but in both the cases I have mentioned the reason was that the policy and detail had not been completed. As we have heard across the House today, we know that the consideration of secondary legislation is inferior, but, while the parameters of what is appropriate are adhered to, that does not become a problem. In those cases, though, it certainly was a problem.

Where a Government consider that they have to introduce a skeleton Bill—perhaps because of parliamentary timetabling—we should look at additional ways of enhancing the process. We have heard some examples today. The DPRRC makes the helpful recommendation of a scrutiny reserve, providing time for Ministers to provide further information, evidence and justification. I have previously called for all draft regulations in such cases to be made available at least prior to Report.

My noble friend Lord Liddle’s proposal that there should be certification of a Bill as a skeleton Bill, and that in those very limited circumstances the statutory instruments could be amendable, deserves further consideration. I think that could be helpful. It would not encourage skeleton Bills through laziness or any parliamentary sleight of hand, but, where it was essential, Parliament would still have the opportunity for effective consideration. I also commend the recommendation by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for a legislative standards committee; I think that would be helpful, certainly for some of the drafting and what I call the workability of legislation. So there are ways of doing this better.

Noble Lords will be aware of the 2006 report by the Joint Committee on Conventions, which emphasised that your Lordships’ House had a limited role when considering secondary legislation but also concluded that one of the very few situations when the House had constitutional cover for a fatal Motion against an SI was

“when the parent Act was a ‘skeleton Bill’, and the provisions of the SI are of the sort more normally found in primary legislation”.

Your Lordships’ House is, wisely and rightly, uncomfortable with fatal Motions, so the kind of process that has been described today by noble Lords across the House would certainly present a more moderate and helpful way forward without disrupting the Government’s timetable or the programme of legislation.

When parliamentary scrutiny is evaded, Professor David Judge—of the University of Strathclyde, interestingly —refers to that as “the dark side”. He identifies the essential components for effective scrutiny as a willingness by the Government to have their legislation properly scrutinised, alongside the willingness and the capacity of Parliament to do so. There is not time today to consider all the practical recommendations in the two reports that have been brought to the House today, but it is clear that they all require the willingness of both parties, or at least one party, and that is where we ought to direct our energies and efforts.

I have a couple more comments to make about scrutiny. The first is that we have heard before in your Lordships’ House—indeed, from the Minister— the Government’s unpersuasive argument against amendments: “The House of Commons didn’t amend this Bill, so likewise your Lordships’ House shouldn’t vote for any amendments either.” My objection to that is twofold. First, the reason for our consideration is that there may be further information, a new issue or a different viewpoint that has come to light and which it would be helpful for Members of the other, elected House to consider, especially when that part of the Bill has not even been considered in the other place because of timetabling.

My second objection is that it misrepresents and overstates the role of your Lordships’ House. We are a scrutinising and advisory Chamber, and any amendment to primary legislation by this House has to be voted on by the elected MPs. My noble friend Lord Rooker has on more than one occasion referred to your Lordships’ House, perhaps unkindly, as a sub-committee of the House of Commons, and it is the case that our deliberations on primary legislation have to go to the Commons. A Government who are confident of their position have nothing to fear from the scrutiny of your Lordships’ House, but it is understandable that a weak Government who do not enjoy the confidence of their MPs may not want to reconsider an issue—in which case that is not about support from this House but about support in the other place.

Finally, Select Committees are probably the most important non-legislative role that Parliament has. When examining ministerial attendance at Select Committees, it is clear that it is not just the “Today” programme on Radio 4 that has its invitations rejected because no government Minister is available. That should change in all cases, especially when Select Committees are looking at legislation or its impact. Ministers should not refuse or unnecessarily delay their appearance before a Select Committee.

It is clear that considerable intellectual efforts and practical experience have been brought to bear in producing these reports. The noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, brought the reports together, and her experience and the evidence in her Financial Times article have been helpful to the House in considering these issues. I look forward to the Minister’s response today, but also to a further debate, when we can examine and discuss the Government’s response to these two reports.

Downing Street Christmas Parties

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reading out the Answer to the Question. I know him to be a decent and honourable man, so I do feel for him that he so often has to come to this Dispatch Box and defend the Prime Minister’s failings.

The picture emerging of the attitudes of staff working for the Prime Minister at No. 10 is pretty unedifying. While the Government were instructing the rest of us not to spend Christmas with loved ones and not to spend time with friends and family who were frail, sick or even dying, back at government HQ, at No. 10, it was party time. Across the country, we stuck to the rules—not just for ourselves, but to protect others. So we have a tale of two situations: the best of times for the PM and his friends, and the worst of times for everybody else. It is a total and utter disgrace.

I have two questions for the noble Lord, aside from the fact that I find it quite bizarre that we are having an investigation as to whether there was a party—just ask the people who were there. The Prime Minister has been forced to announce that the Cabinet Secretary, who himself is rumoured to have been at this party, will carry out an inquiry into those events. In the House of Commons, the Paymaster-General, as we heard in the Statement just now, said that any evidence of criminal behaviour will be passed to the Met. Given the public’s absolute lack of confidence that the Prime Minister has been telling the truth, surely it is for the Met to decide what is criminal behaviour and what is not. Can the noble Lord confirm that all information will be passed to the Met, not just that which is filtered through government? Secondly, can he confirm whether any members of the Government from your Lordships’ House were either in attendance or even invited to the parties and other social events at No. 10 last December?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I reject the characterisation of both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the many people who work in No. 10 Downing Street and elsewhere, whether political employees, political figures or civil servants. Whatever emerges from the findings of these alleged events, I think it is quite wrong to extrapolate from that to besmirch a whole class of people who are seeking to do their very best for this country.

So far as the facts are concerned, as I have said, the Cabinet Secretary will investigate. As the noble Baroness said, matters relating to adherence to the law are properly for the police to investigate, and the Cabinet Office will liaise with them as appropriate.

I believe it is best that we should now wait for the findings of this inquiry, which the Prime Minister has directed should be produced as soon as possible.

Ministerial Code

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

That would be a novel sanction for Ministers; obviously I welcome the proposals made this morning on another matter. I have read that, and I personally take it very seriously. As a Minister in your Lordships’ House, I believe that the first duty is to your Lordships’ House. Like my noble friend, I am advancing in years and I remember the days when news was news and not spin disseminated aforehand. We should all aspire to respect for Parliament.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Prime Minister respects Parliament, he surely has to respect the Ministerial Code. It seems that he has a rather arm’s-length relationship with it at times. Perhaps, instead of having a review, we should see the code adhered to, which I think would please your Lordships’ House more than seeing it change. When the code is reviewed, we should also look at the foreword from the Prime Minister, because I think perhaps his priorities were wrong when he drafted that, as Brexit is mentioned three times yet integrity is mentioned only once.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that events evolve and that what must remain constant is high standards of behaviour. Personally, I am proud to be a Member of my right honourable friend’s Government, and I do not share the view held of him by some on Benches opposite.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his contribution and his endurance in getting through it—I have some cough sweets if they would be any use to him. I know how he feels; I once took a Bill through Committee while recovering from flu, with a lot of Lucozade under my desk. Given that he is not very well, I thank him for his contribution today. This is a relatively short Bill—six clauses and one schedule of what the Government describe as minor and consequential amendments. It is significant none the less, despite its brevity.

I was talking to a colleague the other day who described your Lordships’ House as the “custodians of the constitution”. That may sound a little pompous, but I think we take the constitutional responsibilities of Parliament very seriously. With that, I entirely concur with the Minister’s comments about the committees of both Houses, which have provided ample information and a very helpful backdrop to today’s debate.

Looking at the list of speakers in today’s debate, we have those who have served in government and at the highest levels of the Civil Service, colleagues from the law and constitutional experts. Some of our newer colleagues will contribute as well; I welcome and look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. When he came to your Lordships’ House, he described it as

“the most effective reforming chamber in the … world.”

I hope we can live up to his expectations. I look forward to his contribution.

The Minister outlined this already, but I really think this Bill reinforces the traditional saying, “Legislate in haste, repent at leisure”. I am not staking any claim for the moral high ground for myself or my party, but it is essential when considering constitutional changes that there is a proper process of investigation, analysis and consideration. Otherwise, it is impossible to predict and fully understand all the implications of the changes proposed. There is an onus on parliamentarians from both Houses, from all parties and none, to ensure that any constitutional change stands the test of time. The answer to addressing such issues is pretty straightforward. Probably quite boringly, it is about having a process to ensure that all the relevant issues and consequences, intended and unintended, are fully understood.

As the noble Lord said, there is now little doubt that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is badly drafted legislation. It is also rather ineffective, possibly because of its starting point. Despite the principle being discussed often—as he said, even in party manifestos—there had been very little detailed consideration. When the Bill was introduced, it was clearly designed for a specific purpose at a specific time: to protect the coalition Government from instability. That was understandable, given that we have little experience of coalition governments in our system, but it is an unavoidable irony that the coalition for which it was designed was clearly more robust than the Conservative Governments that followed, as ways then had to be found to circumvent the legislation. There is little disagreement that it is flawed and needs to be replaced. The question that remains is how to go about it.

When reading through the debates in the other place, I found it interesting how often ministerial comments and opinions were asserted as facts. If I were being generous, I would probably describe them as optimistic assertions. At Third Reading in the other place the Minister, Chloe Smith, stated:

“The Bill therefore repeals the 2011 Act and returns us to the tried and tested system whereby Parliament will automatically dissolve after five years, if it has not been dissolved earlier by the sovereign exercising that prerogative power at the request of the Prime Minister.”


She then asserted that the Bill will

“reset the clock back to the pre-2011 position with as much clarity as possible”,

but does it really do that? First, the Joint Committee that the Minister here referred to identified ways in which the then draft Bill did not do that, including through the inclusion of Clause 3 in the Bill before us today. This is the ouster clause that puts in statute that the decision to hold an election is outside any legal jurisdiction. If the “factory settings” were being restored to 2011, then surely such a clause would not be required. I heard what the Minister said but it did not really bring the clarity that we are looking for.

In the debate in the other place, the Minister then also declared that the Lascelles principles—through which a monarch has a constitutional power under the prerogative to refuse an election in three very limited circumstances—were ones that the Government “acknowledged” as a historical fact and that

“now is the time for the underpinning conventions of the prerogative power to be debated and, indeed, restated.”—[Official Report, Commons, Dissolution and Calling Of Parliament Bill Committee, 13/9/21; cols. 721-22.]

However, I am unconvinced that any of this provides the clarity we need for the legislation before us.

The key question is whether the prerogative can be restored by statute and, therefore, whether the Bill restores the prerogative powers as they previously existed, including the principles by which a monarch can refuse an election. If it is the Government’s view that that is the effect of the Bill, why is Clause 3—the ouster clause that would prevent any decision being judicially challenged—so essential? That is a very specific question, and it is important because Clause 3 implies that the Government consider that by seeking to revert to what they describe as the previous position by statute, the decision to call an election could be legally challenged.

When our own Select Committee on the Constitution, chaired by my noble friend Lady Taylor, examined this issue last year—albeit without the benefit of seeing the legislation now before us—it said:

“The possibility of legal challenge to the prime minister’s advice to the Monarch, or the Monarch’s decision to dissolve Parliament, must be avoided.”


I accept that, and I understand why the Government remain scarred by the attempt at an unlawful Prorogation that was successfully legally challenged in 2019. The Minister will recall that so great was my concern and that of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we refused to take part in the Prorogation ceremony, which was later in effect declared void.

As the Minister and I have discussed, there is a clear difference between Prorogation and Dissolution, but the wider and perhaps more relevant question is whether the way the legislation is drafted is the correct way to address the issue. There was a difference of opinion in the Joint Committee, yet even those who supported the Government’s approach in principle were concerned at how Clause 3 had been drafted—that is, its extent and future use as defined in Clause 3. My noble friend Lord Rooker picked up that issue and the Minister is right that it will have to be debated—perhaps for longer than he would like, although hopefully not too long. Still, it will have to be ironed out in Committee.

The use of the word “purported” has caused considerable concern because it appears that, in effect, Parliament is giving the Executive the power to do something that is not within their power, and there would be no legal redress whatsoever. I am not a lawyer—it probably shows—but from reading through the various reports and evidence to the Joint Committee and the Constitution Committee, it was obvious that if you ask two lawyers the same question, you get at least three opinions. Some said that they thought the ouster clause was clear, while some thought there was the potential for abuse. Others, including constitutional experts, considered that the courts would then seek to interpret the clause. I suspect that the potential for the latter two outcomes is undesirable and certainly not what the Government intended—so Clause 3, the ouster clause, may not even do what the Government intend.

So, what are the alternatives? I suggest that there are two options that we could consider and draw out in Committee. First, as invited by the Joint Committee, the Government could consider whether a more limited but clearer and more precise approach could be more effective. However, in the initial response to that invitation, the Government appeared to both agree and disagree. They accepted that clarity was necessary but disagreed that they needed to change anything.

An alternative approach would be for the House of Commons to continue to have a vote on the issue. Given that the power has been with Parliament since the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, it would not be a huge leap to consider that that position should continue. Otherwise, the effect of the changes proposed by the Government will not be just to set the clock back to 2011 but to increase the power of the Prime Minister not just beyond the current position but beyond what existed prior to 2011.

Let us face it: this Prime Minister has not exactly established himself as someone who could be constrained, or even guided, by the normal conventions of Parliament. Whether because of the unlawful Prorogation, for example, or his lack of support for the Ministerial Code, there are many who consider that the Prime Minister wants to find ways around the usual and normal ways of working rather than follow the rules. But, as we have already seen, he is not alone in the Government in appearing to consider the normal processes of checks and balances in our system as something of an inconvenience. Legislation has to be considered for all situations, not just one particular Prime Minister.

I am sure that most noble Lords in this House would agree that Parliament and the governance of our country work best when there is a balance between the Executive and Parliament, not when the Prime Minister thinks that they are one and the same. If the Government consider that the Lascelles principles still apply—and I am not convinced that they do—the monarch could, in future, again be placed in a difficult position: having to make a decision to either accept an inappropriate request for Dissolution or refuse the advice of a Prime Minister for an election. However, the ouster clause is a heavy-handed, inappropriate way of dealing with the issue.

A point made by Professor Andrew Blick of King’s College, London, is one that we would do well to heed, and perhaps look at in more detail in Committee. In his evidence, Professor Blick considered that maintaining a vote in the House of Commons would help to insulate the monarch from being put at the centre of a political and constitutional controversy. Many of us remain very concerned at the way the Leaders of both Houses went to Balmoral to ask the Queen to call for the Prorogation. So I favour this approach, but we will get into that in more detail in Committee.

There are other issues in the Bill, such as the number of days needed for a general election, that we may also want to probe further. I look forward to today’s debate, with the expertise and information we have in this House, and to our deliberations in Committee.

Hereditary Peers: By-elections

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend talks about backdoors. Of course, the proposition before us would be a backdoor to the creation of an all-appointed House with no assent by people or Commons.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that “hereditary” and “elections” seem to be a contradiction in terms? I recall that, on a parliamentary visit with the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, he would say, “My name is Patrick Courtown, I’m a hereditary Peer and I’m elected,” and I would say, “I’m Baroness Smith and I’m appointed.” It does not make sense to anybody else in the world. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is the most important one: what really matters is the work of your Lordships’ House. When we are here, nobody knows who—other than the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, because I have just pointed it out—is hereditary and who is appointed, because it does not matter once they are here. Therefore, why not just end this farce of by-elections and treat all Members as equal? On that basis, I can promise that the Official Opposition will give any legislation a fair wind and get it through very quickly.

[Lord True (Con)]

I agree with the noble Baroness; indeed, I said that the work of this House is the most important thing. I agree with her that all of us here are equal. What I do not agree with, I repeat, is the proposition put by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

Ministerial Code

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend, but I will continue my policy of not throwing political stones—we all know that they exist. The Prime Minister is accountable to the electorate, as well as to Parliament. As my noble friend says, the electorate will be the ultimate judge of what I consider to be his high service to this country.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, does the Minister understand why the Ministerial Code being made statutory is such an issue now? I put it to him that, whether it is ignoring the judgment of HOLAC about the appointment of Conservative Party donors to your Lordships’ House, ignoring the judgment of the independent adviser on allegations of bullying by the Home Secretary, or the shenanigans that have brought shame on Parliament as the Government attempted to defend Owen Paterson and defy the Commons standards commissioner and the committee, there is increasing evidence that this Prime Minister considers the rules to be for other people and not to apply to him or his close chums. Will the Minister now accept, as many others have done, and as my noble friend Lord Foulkes raised, that this Prime Minister—this Prime Minister—cannot be trusted to uphold the Ministerial Code?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords.

Integrity of Electoral Processes

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, when I saw the title of today’s debate, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, which is to ask the Government

“what plans they have to consult on measures to enhance the integrity of electoral processes”,

my first thought was: how appropriate for a valedictory speech from the noble Lord, following 16 years in your Lordships’ House but also a lifetime of campaigning on constitutional and political issues. I am pleased to respond on behalf of our Benches. I am only sorry that, in the four minutes available to me, I cannot do justice to the noble Lord’s career in Parliament and the campaigning he has done. I suspect that he takes his voluntary departure from your Lordships’ House with mixed emotions. It is a retirement well earned. As we heard, before taking his place in your Lordships’ House, he represented two constituencies in the House of Commons. Throughout 30 years in Parliament, he has, as we have heard from him and his colleagues, been a stalwart of his political party.

The noble Lord would expect me to say that, at times, we have differed on what reform of Parliament means and what changes could be made, but we have never disagreed on the commitment to the integrity, honesty and public confidence in our system and our representatives at every level of public service. I believe that he should take pride in the work he has done—but I have a sneaking feeling, reinforced by his comments today, that his choice of debate is not because he considers that all is well but because, as we have heard from his opening speech, like many of us he fears for the integrity of our system and processes.

I am never quite sure whether the Government are just careless about the integrity of our national institutions, or, as others have suggested, it is part of a calculated effort to undermine and erode anything that Boris Johnson sees as opposition. Some of these attempts would be quite comical if they were not probably intended. Noble Lords will recall, when we had the tax credits debate shortly after I became Leader, a government Minister threatened to introduce a thousand extra Peers into your Lordships’ House. On another occasion, there was a plan to divide Parliament and send half of it—the House of Lords—up to York. We also saw the unlawful Prorogation of Parliament, and now we even see attempts to make our independent courts system more political. Just this week, on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph, it was reported that

“Mr Raab revealed that he is devising a ‘mechanism’ to allow the Government to introduce ad hoc legislation to ‘correct’ court judgments that ministers believe are ‘incorrect’.”

I find that truly shocking.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, outlined so many of the concerns that many of us in your Lordships’ House share. In among the many other sad examples that I could give is the focus of today’s debate: the Elections Bill. The Government originally planned to call it the elections integrity Bill. Perhaps it was an examination of its content that saw that misnomer of a title soon dropped. Back when I was a Minister, a lesson I learned with regard to legislation was to clearly identify the problem you are seeking to address or resolve, then judge whether the remedy was an effective and proportionate response. The Government’s Elections Bill fails both those tests, but it is perhaps passes the Johnson test—to weaken any critics, using his largely unquestioning parliamentary majority to do so.

I want to be clear: confidence in and the integrity of our country’s system of voting is essential. There can be no compromise on that. So I thought, let us have a look at the impact assessment—perhaps that will shine a light on and identify the problem the Bill seeks to solve. Under the heading:

“What is the problem under consideration? Why is government action or intervention necessary?”,


there is no problem identified. There is nothing about abuse, merely that the Government want to ensure that,

“our elections remain secure, fair … and transparent.”

There is no justification for the measures proposed.

The question from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is moderate and sensible. He merely asks what plans the Government have to

“consult on measures to enhance the integrity of electoral processes.”

Would it not be great if the Minister could stand up and tell us something that will satisfy the entire House? When a significant constitution-related change, such as that in the Government’s Bill, are proposed, the sensible, pragmatic and decent way forward is to seek consensus across the political spectrum. There will always be differences in views on the voting system, campaigning styles and related issues, but on the most fundamental of questions about the robustness and integrity of the system, I believe there is a mainstream political consensus.

I am grateful for the opportunity that the noble Lord has given the House to address some of these issues. I am sorry he will not be with us when we get to discuss that Bill, but I will also say that these Benches are grateful for the noble Lord’s service to this House. We wish him well in his retirement and we wish him a very happy birthday.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Effect of Renegotiation on Other Trade Negotiations

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the decision taken, which I think is a good one, is that the UK-EU TCA is so sui generis—in fact, it goes much beyond trade into many wider areas such as law enforcement, road transport and so on—that it is best to handle it in a sui generis way. I do not know whether that decision is for ever, but it is the one that has been taken at the moment. We are ready to talk to the US about an FTA when it is ready. The US is conducting a review of its external trade policy at the moment. Some negotiating rounds have already taken place, but we stand ready to talk when both sides are ready.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers today and rarely have I heard answers so complacent about the concerns raised in your Lordships’ House on our international reputation and future ability to negotiate agreements, whether they be trade agreements or the complex negotiations around COP 26, if there is a lack of faith in us being trusted to keep our word on agreements we have already negotiated. I hope that he will go away and reflect on the comments he has made to your Lordships’ House today. On that issue, I bring him back to his earlier comment about the legal text. He said, “We will publish the legal text if it is useful”. We think it would be very useful and, if there is no difference from what has already been said, can he explain why he will not publish it? I bring him back to the issue of trust and transparency as something on which this Government have to make up for lost ground.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, we will publish the legal text if it is useful to the negotiating process between us and the European Union. At the moment, I am not convinced that it would be; circumstances may change, so that is not a decision of principle. To return to the first point of the question, I am of course in no way unmindful—quite the opposite—of our international reputation but, in the end, I cannot do anything about how others perceive us.