Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament: Special Report
Earl Howe Excerpts(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, and declare an interest as an occasional reviewer of national security matters.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, reports from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament must go through a number of processes before publication. Those processes apply to the report to which the noble Lord refers in his Question. The Prime Minister will respond to the committee’s request to publish this report in due course, once the usual processes have been completed.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
The Minister’s response echoes two unsatisfactory explanations aired in recent days for this irregular state of affairs. The first is that redaction remains to be completed. This report has already been through the full redaction process with the agencies and the Cabinet Office. In the ISC’s experience, prime ministerial confirmation has always been a formality. The second explanation is that time is needed for the Government to respond, but the Government’s aim and usual practice, as set out in a 2014 memorandum of understanding, is to respond not when a report is published but within 60 days. This unjustified delay undermines the ISC and, I am afraid, invites suspicion of the Government and their motives. Will the Minister advise No. 10 to think again?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord in several respects. The length of time for which this report has been with the Government is not at all unusual. It is one of a number of ISC reports which the Government are currently considering. In this instance, the Government are following the standard process which applies before every publication. A memorandum of understanding with the committee sets out the relationship between it and the Government. This does not include a timetable for the Government to clear such a report for publication and there is no set timeline for a response. Nor is such a deadline set in governing legislation.
Having said all that, I realise that the subject of this report is a matter of particular public interest and have no doubt that noble Lords’ comments will not be lost on those in No. 10.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that MI5, SIS and GCHQ are all willing for the report to be published?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there have been press reports in the past two or three days on this. There have been what look to be official select leaks saying that actually, the report exonerates everyone regarding Russian money. However, the Guardian this morning states that the report deals with allegations that,
“Russian money has flowed into British politics in general and the Conservative party”.
Edward Lucas in the Times this morning reports that he understood clearly that the report was on track towards imminent publication last Thursday and has since been blocked by No. 10. Given those reports, which are damaging for the Conservative Party at the start of an election campaign, does the Minister not think it extremely wise to ensure that the report is published as soon as possible, before it becomes more of a campaign issue?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I note the noble Lord’s comments. The governing Act—the Justice and Security Act 2013—makes it clear that the impact of releasing potentially sensitive or sensitive information needs to be considered carefully by the Prime Minister on the advice of civil servants. That process cannot be rushed; I say that with some emphasis.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I have had the privilege of appearing before the ISC many times in my career; it is always a bracing experience. Does the Minister accept that the committee is widely renowned for the quality of its judgments and the value of its advice? Does he further accept the central point: that the ISC is the only Select Committee of Parliament that requires the Government’s agreement to publish its reports? When Ministers say that they need time to respond, they miss the point that what is being asked for is publication of the report; the response can take its time. There is a clear public interest in the national security implications of Russia’s adversarial conduct.
Earl Howe
I concur completely with the noble Lord’s points. The ISC does its job in an exemplary way and has been chaired exemplarily by my right honourable friend Dominic Grieve. Its reports are thorough, in depth and substantive. However, I must depart from the noble Lord in his implication that there is a special case here for accelerating the process of publication.
Noble Lords
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister say whether the report will be published before the election?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend take back to his department and to the Prime Minister the clear strength of feeling across this House—and the sense of urgency, given that we face Dissolution tomorrow—that the report should be published? Indeed, as far as the House has been informed, there is an urgency to this matter. The report does not require consideration; all it requires is publication. Everything else has been arranged.
Earl Howe
Understandably, the committee has access to highly sensitive information that allows it to carry out its oversight duties. The reports it produces often contain information that, were it to be released, might damage the ability of those the ISC oversees to discharge their functions. That is why the governing Act allows for a period of time for the Prime Minister to consider the report carefully. That is what is happening at the moment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, what has the Prime Minister got to hide?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I regret the implication in that question: the noble Baroness is implying that the Prime Minister does have something to hide, and I repudiate that suggestion in emphatic terms. The normal processes are being exercised and the report will be published in due course.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, did not the process of clearing this report start on 28 March, seven months ago? Only the final stage of its being cleared by the Prime Minister started in October. Also, is not the point of the report that it is relevant to an upcoming general election? The Government should make a particular effort to ensure that it is in the public domain. Please will the Minister ask No. 10 to think again?
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has said that the report is to be published “in due course”. Can he give your Lordships’ House an absolute assurance that that does not mean that it will be kept back until after polling day? As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has rightly said, it would be outrageous if the public were not given the reassurance that we hope is in the report, long before polling day. Does the Minister recall that in the Queen’s Speech, the Government committed themselves to,
“protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral system in the United Kingdom”?—[Official Report, 14/10/19; col. 3.]
Can he think of anything more important than to reassure the nation at this stage that our electoral system is not to be undermined by foreign interference?
Earl Howe
My Lords, these are indeed extremely topical and important matters and I do not depart in the least from the premise that the noble Lord has articulated. In the UK, we have seen no evidence of successful interference in our democratic processes, but we are not complacent. We know that there are those who would wish to do us harm and try to divide us, but I can say without equivocation that that will always be met with a robust response. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is no less committed to ensuring the integrity of the electoral process than is the noble Lord himself.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is being very careful in his choice of words. He is conflating the process by which government as a whole has to consider the report, and that includes a process by which the various agencies have the opportunity to ask for various things to be redacted. That is widely understood, so unless the noble Earl is able to confirm that that is not the case, those agencies have agreed what redactions are necessary. Given that, the only item remaining is the Prime Minister’s approval and therefore the only issue is this: has the Prime Minister not had the time over the past fortnight, or is there something in the report which he feels would be embarrassing if put in the public domain now?
Earl Howe
My Lords, no. This matter rests entirely with the Prime Minister. Of course, agencies have a role to play but, in the end, it is his decision and he is entitled to take that decision in his own time, in accordance with the security considerations that he perceives in the report.
Early Parliamentary General Election Bill
Earl Howe ExcerptsWednesday 30th October 2019
(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very constructive and focused debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. Unsurprisingly, we have heard a range of views expressed on all sides of the House about the Bill and the reasons why we find ourselves debating it, so I think that a helpful place for me to start is to return briefly to first base by re-emphasising the key points made earlier by my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Why do we believe that a general election is now necessary? The hung Parliament that we are in, complicated by the divergent views of elected Members across all parties on the most significant political and constitutional issue of our day, has created an impasse. It is an impasse that the Government are clear cannot be allowed to continue.
The withdrawal agreement negotiated by my right honourable friend Theresa May was rejected on three separate occasions earlier this year. The Prime Minister has successfully negotiated a new deal and the other place passed the revised withdrawal agreement Bill at Second Reading. However, by also voting down the Government’s programme Motion, they prevented the progress of that Bill and, hence, this country’s departure from the European Union by 31 October. Then, despite the extension of the Article 50 deadline, conversations held in another place made it apparent to the Government that there could be no certainty, or anything approaching certainty, of the withdrawal agreement Bill receiving parliamentary approval through all its subsequent stages. Therefore, contrary to the contention made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition, it was not rejection of the programme Motion that brought about this Bill; it was the Government’s realisation that even the three-month extension to 31 January left the fate of the Bill wide open.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said that she accepted that there should be a general election. I wish that she had done so with as much good grace as the noble Lord, Lord Newby. All the main political parties now agree that a general election is needed in order for the British people to have their say, and we earnestly hope to provide a new Parliament with a way forward. So this is a short and simple Bill, which sets the date of the election as 12 December. The general election timetable allows the Northern Ireland Budget Bill to pass before Dissolution, to ensure that the Northern Ireland Civil Service can access the funding it needs to deliver public services and proper governance in the Province.
The 12 December date is important for another reason: it is critical that we do not miss this opportunity to have an election, and a new Parliament sitting, before Christmas. An election on the following Thursday—19 December—would not allow time for the new Parliament to sit before the start of the new year. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his intervention, asked me for the earliest date on which Parliament could first sit following the poll. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has stated that if our party were to win the election, he would aim for both Houses to reconvene before 23 December. However, the exact date cannot be set until after Dissolution, when the Sovereign issues a proclamation, so I regret that I cannot more specific.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
I am grateful to the noble Earl for that, but surely the Queen cannot reopen Parliament before Christmas, on 23 December. That would be an absurd time to have a reopening of Parliament. Surely the answer is that the Queen cannot reopen Parliament until 6 January. We would then have a Queen’s Speech debate, so proceedings on the Bill are unlikely to start before the week beginning 13 January. We will then be getting into just as difficult a position, in passing the Bill before 31 January, as we were previously.
Earl Howe
I cannot agree entirely with the noble Lord. The House will have followed his train of thought, but it is nevertheless possible for Parliament to convene before Christmas for swearing in and so forth to take place, and we can get that part of things done. As I have said, I am not in a position to speculate in advance of the Sovereign’s proclamation the exact timetable following that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think the House would like a bit more information. When the noble Earl says that the House could reconvene before 23 December, I think that most Members of your Lordships’ House, and indeed of the other place, would expect that some business would be undertaken. If the election were on 12 December, I see little reason why the House could not reconvene the following week. He will appreciate that legislation will be required before the end of January. Surely the Government do not intend not even to start tabling business until the middle of January.
Earl Howe
Before we have a new Government in place, it is certainly not in my gift to specify the date on which Parliament will return, or indeed what it will do when it does return. However, I am sure the noble Baroness, if and when she is elected to office, will see to it that there is a rapid reconvening of Parliament.
I listened with care, and a great deal of sympathy, to the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Whitty, on the critical issue of transparency in electoral campaigning. I also read the noble Lord’s article in the Times today. His criticisms of the Government are noted, but I hope he will accept that the Government are committed to increasing transparency in digital campaigning, to maintain a fair and proportionate democratic process. As both noble Lords will know, to this end, on 5 May the Government announced that we will implement an imprints regime for digital election material. The aim of that is precisely to ensure greater transparency, and to make it clearer to the electorate who has produced and promoted online political material.
Lord Tyler
We had some exchanges on this point last Wednesday, and as the Minister has now repeated to your Lordships, that commitment was given as long ago as May. What exactly is he proposing should now take place to ensure that those very urgent controls are implemented before the poll takes place?
Earl Howe
I understand the noble Lord’s impatience for moving faster in this area but I am sure he would acknowledge that nothing would be worse than getting this wrong. If we were to proceed in haste, we could find ourselves either unintentionally stifling democratic debate with overly restrictive regulations or rushing through a regime that would mean people were unknowingly committing an offence, and we would not want that either. It is a much more complex area of the law to get right than it may at first appear.
Lord Puttnam
I thank the noble Earl for giving way. All I am trying to get at is that nothing could be worse than a contested election result, and the rules that we are applying at present make that almost inevitable. If it is a very close election, as I suspect it will be, it does not matter which party wins; it will be contested. Given the fragile state of our democracy at the moment, I cannot think of a worse outcome.
Earl Howe
I understand the noble Lord’s concern, and I am sorry that it has not proved possible to enact the measures that I am sure we all want. However, I reconfirm the commitment that the Government have given that, if re-elected, we will bring forward detailed proposals on the scope of the new regime in the coming months for further scrutiny.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke in her clear and emphatic way in favour of strengthening the powers of the Electoral Commission. I hope she knows that the Government work closely with the Electoral Commission to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of referendums and elections. The commission has civil sanctioning powers that apply to referendums and elections. More serious criminal matters can be, and are, referred to the police and then considered by a court of law. The courts already have the power to levy unlimited fines.
However, it is important to remember that the commission is independent of the Government and accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Quite rightly, the Government are not involved in the decisions over what the Electoral Commission investigates or the fines that it may impose. The commission has recommended that its sanctioning powers be increased, and the Government are considering that proposal. The amendment that the noble Baroness spoke to would involve giving the Electoral Commission fining powers far beyond those of most other civil regulators. My own view, and that of the Government, is that that would not be proportionate. Even the Electoral Commission has not suggested having unlimited fining powers. Instead it has suggested that fines should be raised to hundreds of thousands of pounds so that it can punish and deter the most serious offences.
More broadly, as the noble Baroness herself said, changes to electoral law cannot be made overnight. They require extensive stakeholder engagement to ensure that they are workable and proportionate. Political parties vary considerably in size and professionalism, and it is important to ensure that their regulation is fair and proportionate so as not to undermine local democracy or discourage engagement.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, called for the rapid reappointment of your Lordships’ Select Committees following the convening of the new Parliament, and I recognise the importance of the issue that he has raised. The reappointment to our Select Committees is of course a matter for the Committee of Selection. They are usually reappointed early in any new Session, and I am sure the usual channels will do everything that they can to help to make that happen. Ultimately, though, these reappointments are not a matter for the Government.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, spoke powerfully about the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and the need for Parliament to reconsider its provisions, and my noble friend Lord Elton added weight to those comments. I am grateful to both of them for what they said. These are serious matters that deserve appropriate consideration. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act provides that the Prime Minister must make arrangements in 2020 for a committee to carry out a review of the operation of the Act. The new Government will be bound to instigate that review and consider its outcome very carefully.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, expressed concerns about the possible tone of the forthcoming election campaign and discussed the need to prevent candidate intimidation and maintain respectful debate across the country. Democracy is a cornerstone of British values and the key to a healthy democracy is having respectful, vibrant and open debate. However, this freedom can never be an excuse to cause harm or spread hatred. A line is crossed when disagreement mutates into intimidation, violence or abuse. The Government recognise that rising levels of intimidation in public life can prevent talented people standing for public office, particularly women and those from minority backgrounds. That is why we are taking action to confront it and will continue to do so if re-elected to government.
The purpose of the Bill is to allow the British people to have their say and to give the other place the mandate to resolve this deadlock and sufficient time to act before 31 January 2020. This is our last opportunity to hold an election in a timely way before that date—an election that has significant cross-party support in the other place. I am sure your Lordships will ensure the swift passage of this vital Bill and enable an election on 12 December.
Business of the House
Earl Howe Excerpts(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House and on her behalf, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I raise a small but important point about the allocation of time for Thursday debates. We have two debates today: one introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on an important local government matter, and one on a very important international crisis in Hong Kong. The allocation of time for speakers in the first debate is 15 minutes, and in the second debate—in which two former Governors of Hong Kong are speaking—only five minutes. I believe it would be appropriate for the allocation and division of time in Thursday debates to be looked at.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He is right to observe that Back-Bench speeches will be limited to 15 minutes in the first debate and five in the last. Because these are balloted and not party debates, we can move only 30 minutes from one to the other. In the normal course, we would have allocated equal time to both. We have given an extra half-hour to the final debate, so we have maximised the speaking time in that debate as best we can. I am sure my noble friend’s remarks will not be lost in the usual channels.
European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
Earl Howe Excerpts(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the instrument that we are now considering is designed to make sensible provision to ensure that, in consequence of our participation in the European parliamentary elections earlier this year, the necessary administrative processes that are required following the poll are able to be carried out and completed. I shall go into more detail on the actions and processes that are required in a moment, but one example is the requirement for relevant electoral officers to store ballot papers and other election-related documents for 12 months after the poll.
The proposed changes will provide for legislation governing European parliamentary elections to remain in place until 31 December 2020. We consider that this will provide sufficient time for post-poll processes to be completed. The Government are acting responsibly in bringing forward the instrument, which is essential to maintain the integrity of our electoral process. The instrument brought before the House today applies to the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.
I turn to the detail of the proposed changes. The intention had previously been that the UK would leave the European Union before the European parliamentary elections in May 2019. As a result, the European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018—which I will call the 2018 regulations—were made to come into force on exit day. Those regulations repeal, revoke or amend legislation relating to European parliamentary elections which would no longer be required. Therefore, as things stand, under the 2018 regulations the legislation will be repealed when we leave the EU.
However, as a result of not having left the European Union before the European parliamentary electoral period, the UK took part in the European parliamentary elections on 23 May 2019. As I have indicated, as a consequence of holding the poll, there are a number of post-poll actions and processes set out in legislation which need to be completed. It is therefore necessary for European parliamentary elections legislation to stay in place after exit day—whenever that is—in order to ensure that the electoral process runs smoothly.
I now turn to the detail of the proposed changes. The instrument is being made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It amends the 2018 regulations concerning European parliamentary elections that I referred to earlier, in order to delay the repeal of the European parliamentary elections legislation until 31 December 2020. We consider that this will provide sufficient time for the post-poll processes that I referred to to be completed. The instrument does not make any substantive changes to any of the provisions in the 2018 regulations but changes the date that the regulations come into force from exit day to 31 December 2020.
That means that necessary functions and processes that are required following the European Parliament poll on 23 May of this year can be carried out and completed. I will give some examples. The SI will allow for the relevant electoral officers to store ballot papers and other election documents for 12 months from the date of the poll, or longer in certain circumstances. Without the law remaining in force, electoral officers will have no legal authority to keep the ballot papers or other documents. The police may need to refer to the documents in the event of an investigation and would not be able to do so if the documents were no longer stored. Political parties will be able to inspect and obtain the marked register throughout this 12-month period. There are also provisions concerning payments to returning officers for the costs of running the poll. If these provisions were not in force, the Government would no longer have legal authority to reimburse returning officers for costs incurred in running the poll.
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 repeals the two main pieces of legislation governing European parliamentary elections: the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 and the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003. The repeal of these two Acts in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will come into effect on a day set out in commencement regulations. In line with the approach we are taking today in relation to this instrument, we similarly intend not to commence the repeal of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 and the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 until after exit day.
I should also highlight that the 2018 regulations include provisions that are not linked solely to the holding of European parliamentary elections. The approach that we have taken in the instrument before us is to leave these provisions on the statute book for a limited period. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew this instrument to the attention of both Houses on the basis that it required elucidation. The Cabinet Office provided details to the committee to explain further why we have taken this approach. It was explained that we carefully considered a number of options and concluded that this approach was the most appropriate because it has the benefit of being clear and simple for electoral administrators to understand and implement. It also ensures that all necessary legislation stays in force, minimising the risk of any adverse unintended consequences.
The committee accepted that these reasons were a reasonable justification for taking the approach in the SI, specifically keeping in force the provisions that are not to do with the European parliamentary elections. I reassure noble Lords that, if it emerges that there are provisions left on the statute book that will cause practical difficulty, we will of course take steps to commence repeal of those provisions.
Once we have left the EU, the UK will no longer have any MEPs or take part in European parliamentary elections—either scheduled elections or by-elections—since the EU law obligation to do so will have fallen away. I can give reassurance that the instrument does not change that position.
Finally, on the wider engagement we have undertaken, the Cabinet Office has engaged on the proposed change with the Electoral Commission, representatives of the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the Wales Electoral Coordination Board, the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Government of Gibraltar. The Electoral Commission and other bodies agree with the Government’s approach in the instrument and consider that the proposed approach is sensible, given that the UK took part in the European parliamentary elections in May of this year. We have also kept the Parliamentary Parties Panel informed of the position with the instrument. I commend the instrument to the House.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have commented on these regulations and I thank them for accepting that we need them, regardless of whether we should be in this position in the first place—I note in particular the comments of my noble friends.
Completely understandably, the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Kennedy, asked me about the Law Commission’s recommendations on electoral law. As they both will be aware, the final report has not been published yet; it is due to be published early next year. The Government will consider it as expeditiously as possible, and any actions that they need to take. It is therefore not fair to say that we are doing nothing about the reform of electoral law. No responsible Government would wish to proceed with reform in an area such as this without having the benefit of the Law Commission’s final report. I appreciate that a lot of discussion has happened, and I am grateful to noble Lords opposite and around the House for participating in that. We would like to proceed as quickly as we may, but it has to be done on a properly informed basis.
I noted the comments of my noble friend Lord Deben in particular. He and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked me about the lessons that we have learned collectively from past elections, but the noble Lord asked me in particular whether the May election was open to any kind of abuse, what we know that arises from that, whether lessons were learned, and so on. That is the subject of the report from the Electoral Commission, and the report by the Association of Electoral Administrators called The Electoral Landscape in 2019. We will obviously wish to give careful consideration to both those reports on the matters raised. As we have done previously, we will look to consider the Electoral Commission’s report in conjunction with the AEA report, and we will respond formally as appropriate.
Lord Tyler
There is a specific issue about transparency of online campaign messaging, which was a major issue in May and was a big issue in the referendum and the subsequent general election. The Cabinet Office consulted about it many months ago. Evidence was taken from the Information Commissioner’s Office; the Electoral Commission also looked into it. I would be grateful if the Minister could take back to the Cabinet Office the concern from all over your Lordships’ House that there seems to be very little action taking place on this. It remains a very sensitive issue, not least because of the important report from the DCMS Select Committee.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I take the point that the Minister made about the work of the Law Commission. It is doing its work and will come back with some comprehensive reports. However, when I have sat in a room with Chloe Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Young, we have all agreed that there are things we can do now. They have never said, “We can’t do anything because we need this Bill going forward”. There are things that can be done. I would ask the Minister to talk to his officials. He would certainly be encouraged by all of us around this House to sort this out quickly, notwithstanding the much more detailed work of the Law Commission; that cannot be used as an excuse for saying, “We do not know enough about that, so we have to leave the electoral system as inadequate as it is now”.
Earl Howe
I take the points made by both noble Lords. There are some tremendously important areas that we need to address. The online issue is one of them. All I can say at the moment is that the strength of feeling that has been articulated this evening will not be lost on my officials: I shall make sure of that. We are committed to implementing an imprints regime for digital election material. This will ensure greater transparency. It will make it clearer to the electorate who has produced and who has promoted online political materials. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that we will be bringing forward proposals in this area in the coming months.
The noble Lord asked me whether the progress of the withdrawal Bill might invalidate this statutory instrument. I can reassure him that it will have no effect at all. We simply need to ensure that the European parliamentary elections legislation is not repealed on exit day, in all circumstances—or in any circumstances—so we still require this statutory instrument to be agreed. If it is, the correct result will be achieved, namely that the repeal of the European parliamentary elections legislation will happen not on exit day but rather, as I said either, on 31 December 2020. The SI is needed simply to provide certainty to electoral administrators and to maintain the integrity of our domestic electoral processes.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked whether I was a permanent or temporary spokesman for the Cabinet Office. I wish I could quantify the length of the piece of string that we are dealing with here. I am but a pale imitation of my noble friend Lord Young, whose presence on the Front Benches is sorely missed. Currently, I respond for the Cabinet Office. It is my privilege to do so and I will continue to do so until requested not to.
Business of the House
Earl Howe Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
That the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [HL] and the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL] having been read a first time in the same form as they stood at the end of the last Session of Parliament, Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the bills to be taken pro forma through the remaining stages which they had completed in the last Session of Parliament.
Business of the House
Earl Howe Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Ramsbotham set down for today shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of Lord Harries of Pentregarth to 2 hours.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend the Leader of the House and on her behalf, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Special Adviser Appointments
Earl Howe Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the correct procedures were followed in the dismissal of Sonia Khan as a special adviser.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the Government do not comment on personnel matters regarding individuals. Special advisers are temporary civil servants appointed in accordance with Part 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. They are bound by the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and the terms of the Model Contract for Special Advisers, which sets out how special advisers are appointed and leave their role.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Noble Lords will recall that on 29 August Sonia Khan was summarily dismissed by Mr Cummings and shown to the front door of No. 10 by an armed officer. Paragraph 3.3 of the Ministerial Code, which was updated on 23 August this year, says:
“The responsibility for the management and conduct of special advisers, including discipline, rests with the Minister who made the appointment”.
The Chancellor knew nothing of this, so under what authority did Mr Cummings—a man who was summoned to give evidence to a Select Committee in another place, told the chairman to “get lost” and was then found to be in contempt of Parliament—dismiss Sonia Khan? Finally, on treatment of special advisers, was it appropriate for Mr Cummings to say to his fellow special advisers:
“If you don’t like how I run things, there’s the door”?
If he continues to act in this arrogant manner, should that invitation not be extended to Mr Cummings?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I just said, my noble friend will understand that I cannot comment on personnel matters relating to individuals. I can say in general terms that, in line with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, special advisers operate under the authority of their appointing Minister. Therefore, special advisers in No. 10 act under the authority of the Prime Minister. Section 8 of the 2010 Act also allows special advisers to exercise any power in relation to the management of another special adviser if permitted by the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. The code of conduct does so permit.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, it is the right of civil servants, if dismissal is contemplated, to have access to a disciplinary board before a conclusion is reached. Is that available to special advisers, and was it available in this case?
Earl Howe
I cannot comment on this case, but the status of special advisers is set out in legislation in the 2010 Act to which I referred. Because of the Crown’s power to dismiss at will, special advisers are not entitled to a period of statutory notice when their appointment is terminated. However, the terms of their employment are set out in their model contract.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I will ask the Minister two questions. Given the report in the Daily Telegraph that Sonia Khan was later offered a pay-off of around £40,000 following her treatment, does he consider that an appropriate use of public money? I also refer him to the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, this time paragraph 14, which says:
“Special advisers must not take public part in political controversy… They must observe discretion and express comment with moderation”.
Does he consider that the Prime Minister’s special adviser is abiding by that or, as journalists have been told, is this just “classic Dom” and supposed to be tolerated?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I cannot comment on the reported offer of a payout, as I hope the noble Baroness will understand. Having said that, the model special adviser contract sets out severance arrangements for when special advisers’ contracts end, as I intimated to the noble Lord, Lord Butler. As I mentioned, all special advisers must adhere to the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, which applies across the board to every special adviser in government. They are also bound by the standards of integrity and honesty required of all civil servants, as set out in the Civil Service Code.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will keep this simple. Does the Minister accept that the behaviour in the Sonia Khan case must never be seen as some form of precedent for the way these people are treated? It must never happen again.
Earl Howe
My Lords, No. 10 has always been involved in the performance management and appraisal of special advisers and other personnel management issues. Disciplinary matters fall under the heading of performance management. That reflects long-standing practice. It is also set out in successive versions of the Ministerial Code.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, are not special advisers appointed to assist their Secretaries of State and Ministers in the performance of their duties? What on earth is the purpose of Dominic Cummings holding meetings with all the special advisers, who should be responsible to their Secretaries of State and not to him?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, paragraph 11 of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers states:
“Any special adviser found to be disseminating inappropriate material will be subject to a disciplinary process”.
Can I ask the Minister about the process? What is the process that should have been applied, or that should be applied in these cases more generally?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the terms of employment for any special adviser, as I have said, are set in their model contract. They are bound by the Code of Conduct. The process will depend on the terms of that contract. Dominic Cummings is ultimately accountable to the Prime Minister for his conduct, as is the case for all special advisers.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, is it not acutely embarrassing to this Government that they have put Parliament in a position whereby it is granting a pass to somebody who is deemed to be in contempt of it? I hope that any compensation to Sonia Khan comes not from the pocket of the taxpayer, but from Dominic Cummings.
Hong Kong Protests
Earl Howe Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain seriously concerned about the situation in Hong Kong, and today’s shooting of a protester is a deeply worrying development. The Government are clear that there is no excuse for violence and we will continue to condemn it. This incident also underlines why a constructive dialogue that addresses the legitimate concerns of the Hong Kong people is so important. What is required now is calm from both protesters and the Hong Kong authorities.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. After four months of protest, today’s use of live rounds against protesters in Hong Kong marks a worrying escalation. I am sure that all noble Lords will share my concern at the spiralling levels of violence on all sides, which appear to be increasing on a near daily basis. Can the noble Earl say whether the Foreign Secretary has made any representations to the Hong Kong or Chinese Governments since the reports emerged earlier today and, if so, can he share any of their responses? Finally, in the light of today’s events, can he confirm what further steps, if any, will be taken to support British national overseas passport holders in Hong Kong?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I said earlier, I share the noble Lord’s deep concern about the situation. However, we must be clear that the situation is fluid. We do not yet know the precise circumstances of this incident. No formal statement from the Hong Kong police has yet been issued, and it goes without saying that the situation is fast moving. Having said that, I can assure the noble Lord that we are in regular contact with the Governments of Hong Kong and China. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Chief Executive of Hong Kong on 9 August. He was due to have a meeting with Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi at the United Nations last week. He was called back for reasons that I do not need to explain, so the meeting did not occur, but he expects to speak to him in the coming days.
As far as the British nationals of Hong Kong origin are concerned, we are clear that the best solution for Hong Kong and the British national overseas passport holders who live there is full respect for the rights and freedoms set out in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. That will be the basis of any actions going forward.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, it is clearly appalling that a protester has been shot while calling for their democratic rights. There is much that the People’s Republic of China might celebrate today—its 70th anniversary—not least pulling millions out of poverty. But does the noble Earl not agree that promises made on both sides at handover must be kept? Reform must be moved forward. Surely, in this instance, the need for the UK Government to request that the Hong Kong Government instigate an independent investigation into violence in Hong Kong has become paramount.
Earl Howe
One of the most concerning features of the current situation is the loss of trust between the Hong Kong people and the authorities there. That trust has to be rebuilt, and to do that the Hong Kong SAR Government should establish a robust, credible, independent investigation into events. We note that the Independent Police Complaints Council is carrying out an inquiry and we look forward to further details on its scope.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in light of the ongoing protests in Hong Kong, have Her Majesty’s Government made any attempt to speak to the other Commonwealth countries about whether visas and rights of residence will be issued across the Commonwealth to the young demonstrators in Hong Kong when and if action of that nature is required? In other words, will we live up to our obligations to provide safe harbour to them?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I share the noble Baroness’s concerns on this issue. We are in dialogue with many of our friends and partners around the world. We have made our concerns about human rights clear to the Chinese Government. Earlier this week, my noble friend Lord Ahmad co-hosted an event in the margins of the UN General Assembly on the situation in Xinjiang, which remains an issue of serious concern.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend realise that those of us who saw the chilling programme on Tiananmen Square last night are particularly concerned by today’s reports? Because we have a legitimate interest, can the Foreign Secretary be asked to see the Chinese ambassador here in London and suggest that there should a British judicial presence on any committee that is established? There is a precedent for that in what has followed the one country, two systems solution, and it would give great confidence around the world if that were the case.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I think it is important that we do not get ahead of ourselves here in a way that might make the situation worse. We are currently reliant on media reporting. As I have said, the situation is fluid. We do not yet know the precise circumstances of the incident that has been reported. It is difficult to confirm the reports in an independent way. We are monitoring the situation closely. I take note of my noble friend’s constructive suggestion, but I think it is too early to go down that path.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
While accepting the seriousness of the use of firearms, does the Minister understand that elements of those who wish to protest are using petrol bombs and Molotov cocktails? If such means are used to try to advance their interests, it perhaps creates a degree of fragility in which there is a very considerable risk that more serious exchanges will take place, including the use of firearms.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Does the Minister not accept that any foreign interference will only make matters worse?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
Are the Government aware of the request of some 300 former members of the forces in Hong Kong, who are still resident in Hong Kong and who took an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, that they be granted the right of abode in the United Kingdom? Many Members of the House of Lords and, indeed, of the other place, have raised this very reasonable request with successive Secretaries of State over the past three years and more, but they have yet to get an answer. Will the Minister encourage an answer?
Earl Howe
My Lords, members of the Hong Kong forces who were recruited from Hong Kong and, in most cases, completed their service in Hong Kong are in that respect different from other members of the UK forces who may have served in the UK. Those serving in Hong Kong before 1997 would not have qualified for British citizenship on the basis of their service. There are a number of existing provisions within British nationality law under which former Hong Kong personnel may apply for citizenship, subject to meeting the relevant criteria.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
As the Minister will know, there are other human rights concerns besides Hong Kong, notably the situation of the Uighurs. Can he confirm that there used to be a regular human rights dialogue, and whether that has now been abandoned?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we lose no opportunity to express our views to the Chinese authorities on matters relating to human rights. Of course, those human rights are embedded in the Joint Declaration. However, I will have to write to the noble Earl about the extent to which regular talks on this subject occur.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride
Perhaps I may come back on one of the points made by the Minister in his response to my supplementary question. He said that the Foreign Secretary last spoke to Carrie Lam on 9 August. That is getting close to two months ago now, which, with so many fast-moving developments, seems a rather long time. I wish to encourage Her Majesty’s Government to have more dialogue and conversations.
Use of Language to Create a Safe Environment
Earl Howe Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given earlier today by my right honourable friend in the other place to an Urgent Question asking the Prime Minister to reflect on his language and his role as the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“British democracy has always been robust and oppositional. This healthy, respectful debate is vital to our democracy. Freedom of speech is, of course, a human right, but it is not an excuse to threaten or abuse anyone whose views you do not agree with. That freedom is compromised when a culture of intimidation forces people out of public life or discourages citizens from engaging in the political process. Let me make it clear, and say with no equivocation, that such abuse is wrong, unacceptable and must be addressed.
I recognise that it is an ongoing challenge—it does not stop after each election. It is important that we tackle this issue and ensure that everyone, no matter their background, can participate in our democracy, free from hatred and intimidation. That is why we are taking action to confront it.
The Government have committed to legislate for a new electoral offence of intimidation of candidates and campaigners in the run-up to an election. We have already made secondary legislation that removes the requirement for candidates standing at local and mayoral elections to have their home addresses published on the ballot paper, and will do the same for GLA Members.
Members across this House have faced threats of violence, attacks on their constituency offices and staff, and abuse aimed at family members. This is abhorrent. I know that honourable and right honourable Members across the House raised this concern yesterday. We want to ensure that people from across the political spectrum can stand for office, free from the fear of intimidation and abuse. We want to tackle this extremely serious issue and protect voters.
The security arrangements for Members of Parliament have been kept under constant review by the Palace of Westminster authorities and the Metropolitan Police’s parliamentary liaison and investigation team, PLAIT. Local forces engage with their MPs and other political figures to meet their security needs. Each force has a single point of contact in place who has contact with PLAIT through regular updates and meetings as required.
The Government are also considering what further steps are necessary to ensure the safety of parliamentarians and their staff. Crucially, this applies not only to Parliament and its vicinity but in constituencies and online. That is why we are also working with social media companies to address threats online and the abuse of MPs, candidates and others in public life in order to create a safe environment for debate”.
That concludes the Answer.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for repeating the Answer from the House of Commons. Perhaps the Government have put forward the noble Earl to respond today because he has not, I do not think, ever been offensive to anyone in his life. It feels awkward to have to address these questions to him when I am sure that the Statement we heard last night from the Prime Minister was as anathema to him as it was to the rest of us.
I thought that this House conducted itself with honour last night because we united in condemning, with shock and disappointment, the content and the language of the Prime Minister’s Statement. There was no party division at all on that. However, after we left the Chamber last night, it got worse. I have watched some of the debates and I have read others since, and I thought that the Prime Minister’s responses to the questions and concerns raised about the impact of his language and tone were shameful. I am thinking in particular of Paula Sherriff. She was really quite emotional when she stood up and referred to what happened to her friend Jo Cox, the MP who was murdered. The Prime Minister’s response was that it was “humbug”. We deserve better than that. To argue that the way to honour Jo Cox’s memory is to bring in the Brexit that she so opposed was, I thought, tacky and unpleasant. We all have to take care regarding our language and behaviour. Abuse in politics is not new—it did not start with Boris Johnson—but yesterday the Prime Minister sank to a new low.
Those who have been Members of Parliament or advisers, or have had to see members of the public, understand the difference here. It is one thing if someone comes to see them, or sends a letter or email, who is aggressive and abusive because they are distressed or unhappy and they get angry, and there are times when we have robust and perhaps overenthusiastic debates. But what we saw last night was a whole different order. When we see calculated actions and language that are designed to provoke intolerance and division, that is something very different. The words of a Prime Minister carry great weight and can dictate behaviour throughout the country and beyond Parliament.
I listened very carefully to the Statement. It is right that the Government are putting in measures for the security of parliamentarians and their staff, but we have to ask: why is it now that we need those? The level of debate has changed; social media has exacerbated that. So when you open that Pandora’s box of intolerance, or when you try to pitch Parliament against the people, you have lost the moral high ground to seek to heal.
We have two things to ask of ourselves and the Government. They relate to a course that I went on recently, and which we will all be asked to attend: the valuing everyone parliamentary course. One thing said in that course is that unless you call out bad behaviour, you are complicit. My two asks are this: first, that we must be conscious of our own behaviour and language and call out the wrongdoing of others; and, secondly—coming back to this point of not being complicit in bad behaviour—it would be really helpful if our own Government Front Bench in this House were to deliver a message to the Prime Minister that he has a duty and a responsibility as the leader of our country to seek to heal, rather than to exacerbate divisions. If that message went out from our Front Bench, I think this House would feel a lot more comfortable and happier. The Prime Minister has to change.
Earl Howe
My Lords, let me comment very briefly on what the noble Baroness has said. I am quite sure that we are all of one mind that it is important for this House to maintain its custom and practice of debate that is sometimes robust but always polite and respectful of the other person’s point of view. I am at one with her in her wish to see that practice spread more widely. It might be helpful if I refer your Lordships to the words of the Speaker in the other place earlier today:
“This country faces the most challenging political issue that we have grappled with in decades. There are genuine, heartfelt, sincerely subscribed to differences of opinion about that matter. Members must be free to express themselves about it and to display … the courage of their convictions. It ought, however, to be possible to disagree agreeably”.
I think that we would all subscribe to that.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I too thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. When I left the Chamber last night, I went to my daughter’s sixth form college for a talk on how we can support our young people through the difficult teenage years. The talk was about how there will be strong differences of opinions on challenging issues, how parents need to remain the adults in the room and that poor communication will only make the situation worse.
Yesterday, here in Parliament—particularly down the other end, I am sad to say, with the words of our Prime Minister—we saw that the language and tone on the issue of Brexit can have the potential to make the divisions on our streets much worse. There is a real possibility of consequences for people in our divided communities and homes. As the noble Earl has said, in this House we champion the right of people to express strongly their views, and we value challenging debate so that we can tease out the realities of the world we are facing. But the many people who are now tuning in to watch Parliament—many more so than normal—do not need to see parliamentarians stoking the divisions and fear in our communities today. They need to see parliamentarians who believe that tone, language, respect and common decency still matter. Does the Minister agree that, for all parliamentarians, from the Prime Minister down, now is the time to remain the adults in the room?
Earl Howe
Yes, I fully agree with everything that the noble Baroness has said. Again, I think that we can cite a good example from our own House on this very set of issues. Earlier this year, the Government published their response to the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life—so ably chaired at that time by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and now by the noble Lord, Lord Evans—and have undertaken to take a number of steps arising from its recommendations. These include issuing a public consultation, Protecting the Debate: Intimidation, Influence, and Information; consulting on our Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper—we will publish a DCMS-Home Office White Paper shortly; writing to local authority chief executives to raise awareness about the sensitive interest provisions in the Localism Act 2011; and a lot more. It is important that those strands of work are kept to the fore, particularly if we are to face a general election in the next few weeks or months.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, as a recent refugee from the other place I was dismayed by the tone of last night’s exchanges. I will, however, make a slightly different point from that of my noble friend. The Prime Minister says that he wants a deal. I hope that he gets one, but to do so he will need to get legislation through both Houses and the support of all sides in both Houses. In addition to my noble friend’s arguments about respect, would it not be politic to tone down the invective in order to build the consensus that the Prime Minister will need to bring this Brexit saga to a satisfactory conclusion?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes, as ever, a very powerful point. However, much of the debate of recent hours has conflated two issues which it is important to distinguish between: strongly felt political opinions on the one hand, and unacceptable, abhorrent acts of abuse, hatred, intimidation and violence on the other. We should keep those two things absolutely distinct in our minds.
Attorney-General’s Legal Advice
Earl Howe Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question given in another place earlier today by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. He was asked to make a Statement about his legal opinion on the advice given to Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament. The Answer was as follows:
“As the honourable and learned Lady knows, the Supreme Court gave judgment on this issue yesterday, and that judgment sets out the definitive and final legal position on the advice given to Her Majesty on the prorogation of Parliament. The Government’s legal view during the case was set out and argued fully before the Supreme Court; the hearing was streamed live and the Government’s written case was, and is, available on the Supreme Court website. I took a close interest in the case and I oversaw the Government’s team of counsel. I have to say that if every time I lost a case I was called upon to resign, I would probably never have had a practice.
The Government accept the judgment and accept that they lost the case. At all times, the Government acted in good faith and in the belief that their approach was both lawful and constitutional. These are complex matters on which senior and distinguished lawyers will disagree. The Divisional Court, led by the Lord Chief Justice, as well as Lord Doherty, from the Outer House of Scotland, agreed with the Government’s position, but we were disappointed that, in the end, the Supreme Court took a different view. Of course we respect its judgment. Given the Supreme Court’s judgment, in legal terms the matter is settled. As the honourable and learned Lady will know, I am bound by the long-standing convention that the views of the Law Officers are not disclosed outside the Government without their consent. However, I will consider over the coming days whether the public interest might require a greater disclosure of the advice given to the Government on the subject. I am unable to give an undertaking or a promise to the honourable and learned Lady at this point, but the matter is under consideration”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that Statement and for giving his noble and learned friend a well-deserved rest after his supreme efforts down the road. Will he join me in distancing this House, at least, from some of the intemperate, ill-advised remarks made by his colleagues in the other place—for example, that Parliament has no moral right to sit; that our judiciary should now become subject to political appointment; and that the highest court in these islands has somehow perpetrated a constitutional coup?
Earl Howe
My Lords, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves—which the Supreme Court itself characterised as a one-off—it is likely that phrases are used in the heat of the moment that are judged inappropriate in the cool light of day. I do not believe that the noble Baroness quoted my right honourable and learned friend quite correctly when she referred to a statement to the effect that Parliament has no moral right to sit. I think what he said was:
“This Parliament … has no moral right to sit”.
That was in the context of a debate on the other place’s inability to reach a conclusion on the outcome of Brexit, not about this particular matter.
I cannot comment on any suggestion that there should be a political process to appoint judges; that is well beyond my brief and I do not believe that it is under consideration at all. Even if it were, it would require lengthy and considered debate and judgment involving political parties of all complexions. It is not under serious consideration at the moment.
In these circumstances, we need to reflect on the judgment that the Supreme Court has reached. Instant comments on it are possible, of course. However, it has major constitutional and legal implications, as the noble Baroness will no doubt accept. It behoves us all to look at what was said and at how that impacts on our legal position as parliamentarians, but also for the Executive to reflect on how they should behave in the future regarding any future Prorogation.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
The noble Earl will be aware that, in the course of delivering the judgment of the court, the noble and learned Baroness, the President of the Supreme Court, observed that the Government had put forward no reason for seeking Prorogation—in contrast, perhaps, to Sir John Major, who submitted evidence to the Supreme Court. Why did the Prime Minister not do the same? Why did he not provide a sworn affidavit, for example? Was he concerned that he might be guilty of perjury if he did so?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General told the other place, this matter is covered by legal privilege. The convention that the advice of the law officers is not disclosed outside Government without their consent is one that it was felt should be observed closely. I am afraid I cannot comment further on that matter.
Lord Deben (Con)
My noble friend knows that I am not a lawyer. What I have to say is therefore not a legal thing. It strikes me that most people will feel that, when the Supreme Court has voted by 11 to none, it would be proper for the Attorney-General not to have included the sentence, “There can be disagreement among people”. Would it not have been better for us all if there had been a very simple statement to the effect that the courts have decided, the Government will accept this and whatever may have happened otherwise no longer obtains? I would like to feel that there was the odd bit of remorse in what he said.
Earl Howe
My right honourable and learned friend has said, in terms, that he accepts the court’s judgment—the Government got it wrong. He has been clear that it is now right that we ensure that any future decisions of this nature conform to the judgment of the Supreme Court. If my noble friend is requiring my right honourable and learned friend to make an apology for the legal view that he took during the course of the case, I do not think that is appropriate. The Supreme Court has disagreed with the Government’s legal view, but that is not the same as saying that the Government’s position was not tenable in the first place.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, with respect, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, did not answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked. The fact is that nobody believes that the Government sought the Prorogation of Parliament to prepare a Queen’s Speech—not even the government Ministers or other people who are peddling this. The evidence that was not the reason was found in the papers presented to the Scottish court, which revealed the real thinking of the Government. The question the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked was: why, in the context of the litigation, was no ministerial statement, far less a prime ministerial statement, put before the court to explain in their own words—not through their lawyers— why the Government sought a Prorogation? Why did the Government not have the courage to put that into a statement? Was it fear that government Ministers would perjure themselves if they did this and swore an oath in that statement?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have already given the reason why that did not happen: any advice that was given to the Prime Minister would have been covered by legal privilege, and it was judged inappropriate to disclose anything of that nature to the court. The Government have been clear about why we need a Queen’s Speech—we want to deliver what the public want and we urgently need to consider how to advance that work in advance of a Queen’s Speech. It was against this background that the Prorogation of Parliament was sought.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I was on these Benches when we supported the legislation that created the Supreme Court, and I ask this House particularly to ponder what would have happened if yesterday’s decision had been made by the House of Lords rather than by the Supreme Court. Was it not the wisdom of that legislation that we separated our constitution in a way that the public would understand, that there is an Executive, a legislature and the rule of law embodied in a Supreme Court? One danger of the way the Government have responded to this is that it does not seem to appreciate, understand, or support the idea that those three pillars of the constitution have to be mutually supportive to make our democracy work.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is back, but if the Government are cooking up some merry wheeze to get around a law of Parliament in the next two weeks, my God, are they going to face an explosion about their disregard for our constitution, our Parliament and our rule of law.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Callanan made absolutely clear, the Government will abide by the law at all times—we cannot do anything other than that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the Supreme Court. It has exercised its duties and functions in an exemplary way, it has reached its conclusions unanimously, and we should be grateful that we have an independent judiciary able to do these very difficult things.